Full text of "Creation Compromises"

See other formats

fa W, jB W*

r,""* -1^

Apologetics Press, Inc.

230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117-2752

Second Edition © Copyright 2000
First Edition © Copyright 1995
ISBN: 0-932859-39-9

All rights reserved. N o part of this book may be reproduced in any
form without permission from the publisher, except in the case of
brief quotations embodied in articles or critical reviews.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication
Thompson, Bert, 1949 -

Creation Compromises / Bert Thompson—second edition

includes bibliographic references and subject, name, and Scripture indices.

ISBN 0-932859-39-9

1. Creation. 2. Science and religion. 3. Apologetics and polemics. I. Title
213-dc21 00-135278

Dedication

To Chad and Cody-

• Two sons whose lives have been a continual blessing to their
parents, a good example to their peers, a source of encourage¬
ment to their friends, and an inspiration to all who know them

• In the hope that you always will love and defend the Truth, re¬
gardless of the consequences

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE
CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 2

CHAPTERS

CHAPTER4

INTRODUCTION: THE IM-
PORTANCEOFORIGINS.13

The Implications and Conse¬
quences of Belief Systems.19

Evolution and Ethics.20

Evolution and Morality.22

Evolution and H edonism.23

Evolution and the Value

of Human Life.24

Conclusion.32

ORIGINS AND ATHEISTIC

EVOLUTION .35

Atheistic Evolution Defined .... 36
Is Atheistic Evolution Popular?. . 39
Why do People Be¬
lieve in Evolution?.40

Is Evolution a "Fact"
of Science?.50

ORIGINSAND CREATION .73

Creation Defined.74

Is Creation Popular?.75

Why do People Believe

in Creation?.81

Is Creation a "Fact"
of Science?.82

VOICESOFCOMPROMISE.87

The Double Revelation Theory. . 90

Theistic Evolution.98

IsTheistic Evolution Popular?.. 100
Why do People Believe

in Theistic Evolution?.102

Theistic Evolution and the
Voices of Compromise.108

CHAPTER 5

EITHER...OR," NOT

"BOTH...AND".117

"Logical Illiterates, Scientific
Simpletons, Fools, and
Menaces".120

CHAPTER 6 GENESIS Ml: MYTHICAL

OR HISTORICAL?.133

Is Genesis 1-11 Mythical

or H istorical?.136

Is Genesis 1-11 Mythical?.136

Is Genesis 1-11 Literal?.144

Are There Two (Contradictory)

Accounts in Genesis?.152

Stylistic Variations.153

So-Called Contradictions.155

The Real Explanation.158

CHAPTER 7 THE BIBLE AND THE AGE

OF THE EARTH-TIME,

EVOLUTION, AND BIB¬
LICAL CH RONOLOGY.163

The Importance of Time
to Evolutionists and Those
Sympathetic to Them.165

Does Time Itself

"Perform Miracles"?.166

The Age of the Earth—

"Wait and See".169

Chronology and the Bible .... 172

CHAPTERS THE BIBLEANDTHEAGE

OF THE EARTH-THE
DAY-AGETHEORY.181

Why the Need for the

Day-Age Theory?.183

Is the Day-Age

Theory Popular?.184

Do All Those Who Advocate
the Day-Age Theory Believe
In Evolution?.187

Is There Lexical and Exeget-
Ical Evidence to Support
the Day-Age Theory?.188

Evidence Substantiating
the Days of Genesis as
Literal, 24-hour Periods.... 192

Objections Considered.201

"One Day is with the Lord

as a Thousand Years".201

Too Much Activity on Day Six. . 205

God's Sabbath Rest

Stiil Is Continuing.211

CHAPTER 9 THE BIBLE AND THE

AGE OF THE EARTH-

THEGAPTHEORY.217

Summary of the Gap Theory .. 221

The Gap Theory—
a Refutation.222

CHAPTER 10 THE BIBLE AND THE

AGE OF THE EARTH-

BIBLICAL GENEALOGIES .247

CHAPTERll THE BIBLE AND THE AGE OF

THE EARTH-ADDITIONAL

CONSIDERATIONS.255

"From the Beginning of the
Creation"/ "From the
Creation of the World".255

"From the Blood of Abel".258

H ow Long Were Adam and
Eve In the Garden of Eden?.. 258

The Doctrine of

Apparent Age.264

III

CHAPTER 12

CHAPTER 13

MISCELLANEOUS COMPROMISES

OFTHEGENESISRECORD.275

Progressive Creationism.275

What is Progressive

Creationism?.277

Is Progressive Creationism

Theistic Evoiution?.279

Is Progressive Creationism

Acceptabie?.281

The Modified Gap Theory. . .. 281
What is the Modified

Gap Theory?.282

A Response and Refutation .... 286
The Non-World View

of Origins.296

What is the Non-Worid

View of Origins?.296

A Response and Refutation .... 298
The Multiple Gap Theory .... 299
What is the Muitipie

Gap Theory?.300

A Response and Refutation .... 302
The Framework Hypothesis
[Artistico-H istorical]Theory .. 303
What is the Frame¬
work Hypothesis?.303

A Response and Refutation .... 306

WHAT IS WRONG WITH

CREATION COMPROMISES?.309

The Error of Creation

Compromises.311

"The Blindness of Pre¬
conceived Opinion".312

Turning the Savior

into a Liar.313

Making Man "the

Naked Ape".315

The Problem with Eve.318

CHAPTER 14

APPENDIX 1

APPENDIX 2

A "Soul-less" Naked Ape?. . .. 319
Did Man "Fall"-or "Rise"?.... 320
A Miiiion Contradictions
—not a Miiiion Years.321

Evoiution and God's Nature. .. 325

COMPROMISE-PRELUDE
TO APOSTASY .329

Compromise—Prelude

to Apostasy.332

Compromise is a Preiude
to Reiigious Liberaiism

and Modernism.334

Compromise is a Preiude to
the Loss of a Person's Soui.... 335
Conciusion.337

THAT "LOADED"OUESTIONNAIRE. . 339
Introduction: History
of This Inquiry.339

The Sears-Thompson Debate.. 342
That "Loaded" Ouestionnaire.. 344

THE BIBLE, SCIENCE, AND

THE AGES OF THE

PATRIARCHS .357

Does the Bible Record of
of the Patriarchs' Ages
Need to be "Fixed"?.359

Suggested Methods for
"Fixing" the Ages of

the Patriarchs.365

Ages Determined by

Counting Years as Months ....365

Ages Counted from Birth

of First Offspring.367

Ages Represent Not Indi-
viduais, but Dynasties.367

REFERENCES 371

SUBJECT INDEX 399

NAME INDEX 415

SCRIPTUREINDEX .423

P reface

Without a doubt, Genesis is the single most vilified book in all the
Bible. While men of every age have mocked and attacked the Bible
as a whole, no single book has taken the brunt of such attacks more
often than the book of G enesis. T he reason for the vehemence and
frequency of such attacks upon the inspired book should be obvious
—both biblical faith and man's world view find their own genesis,
theirraison d'etre, within its pages. But, with Genesis neatly dis¬
missed, the remainder of Scripture rests upon a mobile foundation,
much like a rotting shack teetering upon a fault line—with collapse
imminent.

Think of the significance of this first book of the English Bible.
Genesis not only provides the only inspired cosmogony available
to man, but in doing so introduces for the first time on written rec¬
ord the Bible's primary theme—the redemption of man through rec¬
onciliation to the God against Whom he had sinned. Genesis tells
man how to interpret the physical world in which he lives. It gives
the divine answers to timeless questions concerning the meaning
and result of sin. It tells man of the proper relationship between the
sexes. A nd it even instructs him as to the origin of the multiplicity
of human languages.

In fewer words than an average sportswriter would use to present
his account of a Friday night high school football game, Moses, by
inspiration, discussed in Genesis 3 the breaking of the covenant be¬
tween man and God, the entrance of sin into the world, and the need
for a coming Redeemer—the theme that was to occupy the rest of

Preface

Scripture. Were it not for the book of Genesis, man forever would
be forced to ask—yet never be competent to answer—such questions
as "Whence have I come?"or "Why am I here?" or "Where am I go¬
ing?" Only in Genesis can the information be found to formulate
answers to these questions, which linger in the heart of almost ev¬
ery person. What we as humans so often fail to realize is that we are
not involved in a search for truth because it is lost; rather, we are in¬
volved in a search for truth because without it, we are!

But we are not merely on a search; we also are engaged in a
battle. When the apostle Paul wrote to first-century Christians in
the city of Ephesus, he talked about that battle. H e wanted to admon¬
ish, to warn, and to encourage. Thus, he penned these words:

Finally, be strong in the Lord, and in the strength of his might.

P ut on the whole armor of G od, that ye may be able to stand
against the wiles of the devil. For our wrestling is not against
flesh and blood, but against the principalities, againstthe pow¬
ers, againstthe world-rulers of this darkness, againstthe spir¬
itual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Wherefore
take up the whole armor of G od, that ye may be able to with¬
stand in the evil day, and, having done all, to stand (Ephesians
6 : 10 - 12 ).

The volume you hold in your hand is a book about a battle—a
battle taking place among us over one of the most important and
controversial topics in human history: origins. It is absolutely im¬
perative that we win this battle. 0 ur souls, the souls of our children
and grandchildren, the souls of many of our friends, and the souls
of many even yet unborn are at stake.

B ut why is this particular battle of such critical importance? There
are a number of reasons, but primarily what makes victory so urgent
is best summarized in this one thought: give a man a false, warped
view of his origin, and he likewise will possess a false, warped view
of his destiny. Origin and destiny are inseparably linked.

In every human activity the process of recognizing, believing, and
properly utilizing truth is vitally important. J esus tried to impress this
upon H is generation when H e said: "Y e shall know the truth, and

Preface

the truth shall make you free” (| ohn 8:32), The same principle oper¬
ates even today, two thousand years later. Surely, if knowing the
truth makes us free, then not knowing the truth makes us captives
of one sort or another. When we refuse to acknowledge and believe
the truth, we become susceptible to every ill-conceived plan, decep¬
tive scheme, and false concept that the winds of change may blow
our way. We become slaves to error because we have abandoned
the one moral compass—truth—that possesses the ability to show
us the way, and thereby to set us free.

The simple fact of the matter, however, is that we are responsi¬
ble for what we choose to believe. U sing the personal volition with
which G od has endowed us, we may choose freely to believe the
truth, or we may choose just as freely to believe error. The choice is
up to each individual. And once an individual has made up his mind
that he prefers error over truth, G od will not deter him, as Paul made
clear when he wrote his second epistle to the Thessalonians. In that
letter, he spoke of those who "received not the love of the truth” (2:
10), and then went on to say that "for this cause God sendeth them
a working of error, that they should believe a lie” (2 Thessalonians
2:11). W hat a horrible thought—to go through life believing a lie!

B ut what, exactly, was Paul suggesting when he stated in 2 Thes¬
salonians 2:11 that "G od sendeth them a working of error, that they
should believe a lie”? Was the apostle teaching that God purposely
causes men to believe error?

No, he most certainly was not. Paul's point in this passage was
that because God has granted man personal volition, and because
H e has provided within the Bible the rules, regulations, and guide¬
lines to govern the use of that personal volition, H e therefore will
refrain from overriding man's freedom of choice—even when it vio¬
lates H is law, God will not contravene man's decisions, or interfere
with the actions based on those decisions. The prophet Isaiah had
recorded God's words on this subject many years before when he
wrote:

Preface

Y ea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soui deiight-
eth in their abominations: I aiso wiii choose their deiusions,
and wiii bring their fears upon them; because when I caiied,
none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did
that which was evii in mine eyes, and chose that wherein I de-
iighted not (Isaiah 66:3-4).

The psalmist recorded God's words on this matter when he wrote:
"But my people hearkened not to my voice; and Israel would not
hear me. So I let them go after the stubbornness of their heart, that
they might walk in their own counsels” (Psalm 81:11-12). In Romans
11:8, Paul (quoting from Isaiah 29:10) stated concerning the re¬
bellious Israelites: "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that they
should not see, and ears that they should not hear."

Therefore, as Paul penned his second epistle to the young evan¬
gelist Timothy, he urged him to "give diligence to present thyself ap¬
proved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, han¬
dling aright the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15). Surely it behooves
us today as well to "handle aright" so precious a commodity as the
"word of truth." The salvation of our own souls, and the souls of those
with whom we come in contact and attempt to teach (by word or
by deed), will depend on the accuracy of the message.

Some, however, have elected to employ their freedom of choice
to ignore and/ or disobey the truth. C oncerning those people who
refused to have God in their knowledge, and who actually preferred
believing a lie to accepting the truth, Paul repeatedly stated that
"Godgavethem up" (Romansl:24,26,28).Theycould have come
to a knowledge of the truth, but they would not.

Strong words, those—"God gave them up!" Why would the apos¬
tle use such terms to describe some of the people of his generation?
H is reason, according to the text that follows, was because "they
exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served
the creature rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:25).

Is this not an apt description of evolutionists of our day? H ave
they not "exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and
served the creature rather than the C reator"? Is this not what evo-

Preface

lution does best—exalting the creature over the Creator? And all in
the name of "science”? When Paul wrote his first letter to Timothy,
he warned: "0 Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust,
avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science
falsely so called" (1 Timothy 6:20, kjv, emp, added). To the Colos-
sians, the apostle to the Gentiles wrote: "Take heed lest there shall
beany one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and
vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of
the world" (Colossians 2:8, emp, added).

Those of us who accept the Bible as the inspired, inerrant, au¬
thoritative Word of God, and who accept the biblical record of or¬
igins at face value, now find ourselves engaged in a fierce battle with
notone, but two antagonists. First, we are involved in a battle with
out-and-out evolutionists—men and women who retain no belief
whatsoever in G od or H is Word. To them, their origin is strictly a na¬
turalistic phenomenon—nothing more, but certainly nothing less.
Richard Dawkins, author of the widely circulated, anti-creationist
book. The Blind Watchmaker, suggested that "Darwin's theory is
now supported by all the available relevant evidence, and its truth
is not doubted by any serious modern biologist” (1982, p. 130). A
scant seven years later, D r. Dawkins even went so far as to state:
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims
not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane
(or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)" [1989, p. 34, paren¬
thetical comment in orig,].

Second, there are the opponents who profess a belief in God and
H is Word, but who have compromised the biblical account of ori¬
gins so that many aspects of the evolutionary cosmogony may be in¬
corporated into that divine record. Those in the first group rally under
such names as atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic, freethinker, and
the like. Those in the second group rally under the banners of the-
istic evolution, progressive creationism, threshold evolution, old-Earth
creationism, and other similar concepts.

Preface

While we disagree strongly with both groups' views on origins,
this book is a discussion about only one of those groups—the one
composed of people who have compromised the Word of God with
naturalistic theories of origins. M uch is at stake, for if the theistic
evolutionists, progressive creationists, and their cohorts are correct,
we who have understood the biblical record to be taken as a literal,
historical account of our ultimate origin are wrong. 0 ur adversaries
defend a view which suggests that the account is not to be taken in
such a fashion, but instead is to be viewed as a mythical, poetical, or
allegorical story that is perfectly consistent with most of the tenets
of organic evolution.

Furthermore, if our detractors are right, most (if not all!) of what
we thought was correct turns out not to be correct. Progressive
creationists, theistic evolutionists, and their kin would have us believe
that while the creation account itself is mythical in nature (and thus
cannot be accepted as historically true), that should not affect our
faith in any significant fashion. For example, ProfessorVan A. Flar-
vey of Stanford U niversity has suggested that "the C hristian faith is
not belief in a miracle, it is the confidence that] esus' witness is a
true one” (1966, p. 274). What does he mean by such a statement?
Listen carefully as he explains further:

If we understand properly what is meant by faith, then this
faith has no clear relation to any particular set of his¬
torical beliefs at all.... The conclusion one is driven to is
that the content of faith can as well be mediated through
a historically false storyof a certain kind as through a
true one, through a myth as well as through history (pp. 280-
281, emp. added).

In other words, biblical faith can be grounded as easily in falsehood
as in truth I So, it is not whether G enesis actually tel I s us the truth,
but whether we believe it tells us the truth that matters.

What strikes one immediately about such a concept is the low es¬
timate of the Bible it entails. If God's Word can use falsehoods to teach
on what are alleged to be "peripheral” matters (like creation), why

Preface

can it not also use falsehoods to teach on "essential" matters (like sal¬
vation)? And who among us, then, becomes the final arbiter as to
what is true and what is false—what is "historical" as opposed to what
is "mythical"?

The fact of the matter is, we serve a God Who cannot lie (Titus
1:2; Hebrews 6:18). What Christ taught, and what the Bible teach¬
es, we, as H is disciples, should believe and teach—with the full as¬
surance that we shall be both accurate and safe in so doing.

The sad truth, however, is that all too often people simply are not
willing to handle the truth aright. 0 n various occasions, this unwill¬
ingness manifests itself even among those who profess to be C hris-
tians, and who suggest that their intention is to defend the Word
of G od while at the same time trying to teach and convert the lost.
When they are challenged regarding the inappropriate and incor¬
rect content of their message, the justification they offer (even if it is
not usually verbalized in these exact words—although sometimes
it is!) is that "the end justifies the means." Some apparently feel that
employing just straightforward, unadulterated, Bible teaching will
not impress people sufficiently to convince them to want to obey
God's Word. Add to that the fact that it simply is not popular in our
day and age to advocate biblical creationism, and it is easy to un¬
derstand why the message of the G enesis account of creation fre¬
quently is altered (or ignored altogether), and why falsehood then
so often is the end result.

But surely the question begs to be asked: What good ultimately
results from the teaching of such falsehood? C an we legitimately
convert the lost through the teaching of error? Can one be taught
wrongly and obey correctly? The teaching of error may comfort
where truth offends. Y es, a person who believes that God created
the U niverse and populated the Earth via the process of organic evo¬
lution can be allowed to think that such a view is correct, B ut in the
end, three things have occurred. First, as a result of having believed
error, the sinner may not be truly converted. Second, the church has
been filled with theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists, and

Preface

others who hold to false views. Since "a little leaven leaveneth the
whole lump" (Galatians 5:9), the church will be weakened, and oth¬
ers may be lured into accepting the same error through association
with those who believe it (and teach it) to be true. Third, the person
who perpetrated the false teaching has placed his soul, and the souls
of those he taught, in jeopardy because of the error he advocated.

Error is error, regardless of the effects produced. C hristians are
not called to teach error, but truth (J ohn 14:6). Surely, the question
should be asked: What faithful Christian would want to teach, or be¬
lieve, any error? God always has measured men by their attitude to¬
ward the truth. A nd the truth can free us only if we know it, accept
it, and obey it. Error never frees; it only enslaves. Spiritual benefits
cannot result from the teaching of error.

It is the thesis of this book that there can be no compromise with
error. Certainly I do not wish to be harsh or strident, but I do wish
to defend firmly the Genesis account of origins as being a literal,
historical, and accurate account of the Godhead's activity in the
realm of creation. Christ, and the Old and New Testament writers,
viewed it as such; therefore we not only are correct in following their
example, but absolutely must do so.

While it may be true that there are many today who reject the
biblical account of creation and accept the basic tenets of organic
evolution (in whole or in part), we must not fall prey to mob psychol¬
ogy—the idea which suggests that because "everyone is doing it,”
that somehow makes it right.

Christ, in H is beautiful "Sermon on the Mount,” warned: "Narrow
is the gate, and straitened the way, that leadeth unto life, and few
are they that find it" (Matthew 7:13-14). Those in the majority ul¬
timately will abandon God's wisdom in favor of their own. In Ro¬
mans 12:2, Paul admonished Christians: "Be not conformed to this
world." H is command had its basis both in C hrist's teachings, and
in those of M oses. In Exodus 23:2, M oses commanded the people
of Israel: "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil."

Preface

It likewise is the contention of this book that C hristians may not
ignore, be apathetic toward, or casual about those who teach such
error. The Scriptures speak plainly on this subject. It is wrong for
C hristians to allow false teachers and their erroneous doctrines to go
unchallenged (2 j ohn 9-11). To the C hristians in Rome, Paul wrote:

N ow I beseech you, brethren, mark them that are causing the
divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine
which ye learned: and turn away from them. For they that are
such serve their own belly, and by their smooth and fair speech
they beguile the hearts ofthe innocent (Romans 16:17-18).

j ude's exhortation was that we "contend earnestly for the faith
which was once for all delivered unto the saints” (| ude 3). Paul told
the Christians in Thessalonica to "withdraw yourselves from every
brother that walketh disorderly and not after the tradition which they
received of us" (2 Thessalonians 3:6). The Greek word translated "dis¬
orderly" is an adverbial form of the G reek verb, atakteo, a word
that, according to Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, is used "of sol¬
diers marching out of order, or quitting the ranks."

The material in this volume is about B ibie believers, and in some
instances even New Testament Christians, who are "marching out
of order" because they have-for all practical purposes-"quit the
ranks." Peter spoke of some who were known to be "wresting the
Scriptures to their own destruction" (2 Peter3:16). Manyofthose
discussed within these pages are guilty of that very offense. Equally
as important, however, is the fact that by advocating—publicly or
privately—their off-beat theories about God's creative activity, they
have influenced others to believe incorrectly, and in so doing to im¬
peril their souls.

In 2 Timothy 3:1-4, Paul presented his protgege with a litany of
sins that characterized what he termed "grievous times." In addition
to those who were selfish, boastful, haughty, disobedient, and with¬
out self-control, Paul wrote of men "holding a form of godliness, but
having denied the power thereof' (2 Timothy 3:5). Paul's point was
that Timothy would encounter some who, from all outward appear-

Preface

ances, were moral, truthful, dedicated Christians. But the outward ap¬
pearance was deceptive because they had become hypocrites whose
lives and teachings did not conform to the G ospel. In a similar fash¬
ion, many C hristians today apparently have ignored the impact on
their own faith, and on the faith of others, of not accepting what G od
has said concerning H is creative activity—and that of H is Son—as re¬
corded in the book of Genesis.

In commenting on the sinful nature of the first-century Pharisees,
Christ H imself said: "Y e also outwardly appear righteous unto men,
but inwardly ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity" (Matthew 23:28).
The people described by Paul who exhibited "a form of godliness,"
but who had "denied the power thereof," possessed the same hypo¬
critical, sinful nature as the Pharisees, which iswhy Paul command¬
ed Timothy, "from these also turn away" (2 Timothy 3:5).

Will historians of the future, as they look back on the twentieth
century, say, as 0 .M. G ilman did of those in the nineteenth century
(when he wrote in his book. The Evolutionary Outlook: 1875-1900):
"After a generation of argument, educated A mericans in general
came to accept the fact of evolution and went on to make whatever
intellectual adjustments they thought necessary" (1971, p. 2)? Will
we give up the inspired testimony of God's Word and simply "make
whatever intellectual adjustments" are necessary to accommodate
our thinking to the pseudo-scientific trappings of organic evolution?
The old adage is correct: "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is
for good men to do nothing."

In regard to the "intellectual adjustments" (read that as "compro¬
mises") that so many Bible believers have made to incorporate var¬
ious aspect of evolution into their faith-system, I am inclined to say
that the philosopher's satirical point was well made when, in days
of old, he said: "QuosDeusvultpederepruisdementat!" ("Whom
the gods would destroy, they first make mad!"). The inspired apos¬
tle Paul put it in another way: "Professing themselves to be wise, they
became fools" (Romans 1:22).

Preface

If I may kindly say so, those who boldly step forward to compro¬
mise the plain teaching of the inspired Word of God need to know
that their compromises will not go unchallenged or unanswered.
It is the purpose of this book both to challenge, and to answer,
many of those compromises. It is my sincere desire that this volume
will provide ammunition for the C hristian soldier who is in the heat
of the battle, so that "ye may be able to withstand in the evil day,
and, having done all, to stand."

Bert Thompson
November 1, 2000

Chapter 1

Introduction:

The Importance of Beliefs
Regarding Origins

T o the faithful C hristian, there is little of more importance
than the proclamation and defense of the 0 Id J erusalem
Gospel that is able to save men's souls. Christianity did not come
into the world with a whimper, but a bang. It was not in the first cen¬
tury, nor is it intended to be in the twenty-first, something "done in
a corner." While it certainly may be true to say regarding some re¬
ligions that they flourish best in secrecy, such is not the case with
Christianity. It is intended to be presented, and to flourish, in the mar¬
ketplace of ideas. In addition, it may be stated safely that while some
religions eschew open investigation and critical evaluation, Chris¬
tianity welcomes both. It is a historical religion—the only one of the
world's major religions based upon an individual rather than a mere
ideology—that claims, and can document, an empty tomb for its
Founder.

Christians, unlike adherents of many other religions, do not have
an option regarding the distribution and/or dissemination of their

Introduction:

The Importance of Beliefs Regarding Origins

faith. The efficacy of God's saving grace as made possible through
H is Son, J esus C hrist, is a message that all accountable men and
women need to hear, and one that C hristians are commanded to
pronounce (| ohn 3:16; Matthew 28:18-20; cf. Ezekiel 33:7-9).

What sets biblical faith apart from the beliefs of certain other re¬
ligions is that instead of being rooted solely in an appeal to the emo¬
tions, it is rooted in an appeal to both the emotions and the intel¬
lect. In other words, biblical faith addresses both the heart and the
mind; it is not just felt, but learned as well. This always has been the
case. From the moment of man's creation, God sought to teach him
how to make correct choices that would keep him in, or return him
to, a covenant relationship with his Creator. Thus, as soon as man
was placed in the lovely Garden of Eden, God gave the instructions
necessary for man's temporal and spiritual well-being (Genesis 1:28;
2:16-17). From that moment forward, God actively taught man how
to build, and maintain, a proper relationship with his heavenly Fa¬
ther. This is evident within the pages of both the 0 Id and N ew Tes-
taments.

The 0 Id Testament, for example, is filled with numerous instances
of God's providing people with the instructions that would prompt
them to serve FI im with their hearts as well as with their intellects.
During the Patriarchal Age, God spoke directly to the renowned
men of old, and conveyed to them the commandments intended to
regulate their daily lives, as well as their worship of FI im. The apos¬
tle Paul, alluding to the Gentiles, spoke of those who had the law
"written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith,
and theirthoughts accusing or else excusing them" (Romans 2:15).

Later, during the Mosaical Age, God's instructions were given
to the FI ebrews in written form so that as they grew numerically,
they also would possess the ability to grow spiritually, j ewish par¬
ents were instructed to teach God's Word to their children on a
continuing basis (see Deuteronomy 4:10; 6:7-9; 11:18-25). Even¬
tually, when national and spiritual reform was needed, God pro¬
vided numerous kings and prophets to perform this important task

Introduction:

The Importance of Beliefs Regarding Origins

(see 2 Kings 23:1-3; 2 Chronicles 7:7-9). It is said of the Old Tes¬
tament prophet Ezra that he purposely "had set his heart to seek
the law of J ehovah, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and
ordinances" (Ezra 7:10, emp. added). Nehemiah 8:7-8 records that
Ezra "caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood
in their place, and they read in the book, in the law of God, distinctly;
and they gave the sense, so that they understood the reading"
(emp. added).

It is clear from such passages that during 0 Id Testament times
God placed a premium on knowing, understanding, obeying, and
teaching H is commandments. The golden thread that runs from
G enesis through M alachi—the urgent message that the Savior was
coming—could not be expressed through emotion alone; the in¬
tellect had to be involved as well. It was not enough for God's peo¬
ple merely to "feel” the message; it had to be taught so they could
understand it, realize its importance to their salvation, and preserve
it for generations yet unborn, to whom it also would be taught.

Similarly, the N ew Testament stresses the critical nature of teach¬
ing. In the first century a.d., the message no longer was "the Sav¬
ior is coming”; rather, the message was "the Savior has come.”
0 nee J esus began H is public ministry, teaching H is disciples (and
others whom H e encountered on almost a daily basis) became H is
primary task. While it is true that today we look upon H im as a mir¬
acle worker, prophet, and preacher, H e was foremost a teacher.
Throughout Galilee, Samaria, J udea, and the surrounding areas,
J esus taught in synagogues, boats, temples, streets, marketplaces,
and gardens. H e taught on plains, trails, and mountainsides—wher¬
ever people were to be found. A nd H e taught as 0 ne possessing au¬
thority. After hearing H is discourses, the only thing the people who
heard H im could say was, "N ever man so spake" (J ohn 7:46).

The teaching did not stop when C hrist returned to heaven. H e
had trained others—apostles and disciples—to continue the task
H e had begun. They were sent to the uttermost parts of the Earth
with the mandate to proclaim the "good news” through preach-

Introduction:

The Importance of Beliefs Regarding Origins

ing and teaching (Matthew 28:18-20). This they did daily (ActsS:
42), The result was additional disciples, who then were rooted and
grounded in the fundamentals of God's Word (Acts 2:42) so that
they, too, could teach others. In a single day, in a single city, over
3,000 people became Christians as a result of such teaching (Acts
2:41). In fact, so effective was this kind of instruction that Christi¬
anity's bitterest enemies desperately tried to prohibit any further publi-
c teaching (Acts 4:18; 5:28)—but to no avail. Christianity's mes¬
sage, and the unwavering dedication of those into whose hands it
had been placed, were far too powerful for even its most formida¬
ble foes to abate or defeat, A (most twenty centuries later, the cen¬
tral theme of the Cross still is vibrant and forceful.

But will that continue to be the case if those given the sobering
task of teaching the G ospel act irresponsibly and alter its content,
or use fraudulent means to present it? The simple fact is, C hristian-
ity's success today-just as in the first century-is dependent upon
the dedication, and honesty, of those to whom the Truth has been
entrusted. God has placed the Gospel into the hands of men and
women who have been instructed to teach it so that all who hear
it might have the opportunity to obey it and be saved. The apostle
Paul commented on this when he wrote: "But we have this trea¬
sure in earthen vessels, that the exceeding greatness of the power
may be of God, and not from ourselves” (2 Corinthians 4:7). The
thrust of the apostle's statement in this particular passage was that
the responsibility of taking the G ospel to a lost and dying world ul¬
timately has been given to mortal men.

From time to time, however, Christians may be afflicted with
either an attitude of indifference, or spiritual myopia (shortsighted¬
ness). Both critically impair effectiveness in spreading the Gospel.
A C hristian's attitude of indifference may result from any number of
factors, including such things as a person's own spiritual weakness, a
downtrodden spirit, a lack of serious Bible study, etc. Spiritual my¬
opia, on the other hand, often is the end product of either not hav-

Introduction:

The Importance of Beliefs Regarding Origins

ing an adequate understanding of the Gospel message itself, or
not wishing to engage in the controversy that sometimes is neces¬
sary to propagate that message.

0 ne such example of spiritual myopia afflicting some C hristians
today centers on the B ibie's teaching regarding the topic of origins.
Because no one is particularly fond of either controversy or playing
the part of the controversialist, it is not at all uncommon nowadays
to hear someone say: "Why bother getting involved in controver¬
sial 'peripheral' issues like creation and evolution? J ust teach the
Gospel.” 0 r, one might hear it said that "since the B ibie is not a text¬
book of science, and since it is the Rock of Ages that is important
—not the age of rocks—we should just 'preach C hrist.'"

Such statements are clear and compelling evidence of spiritual
shortsightedness, and belie a basic misunderstanding of the serious¬
ness of the Bible's teachings on one of its most important topics.
First, those who suggest that we not concern ourselves with "pe¬
ripheral" issues such as creation and evolution, and that we in¬
stead "just preach the Gospel,” fail to realize that the Gospel in¬
cludes creation and excludes evolution. Second, those who
advise us simply to "emphasize saving faith, not faith in creation,”
apparently have forgotten that the most magnificent chapter in all
the B ibIe on the topic of faith (H ebrews 11) begins by stressing the
importance of faith in the ex nihilo creation of all things by God
(verse 3) as preliminary to any kind of meaningful faith in H is prom¬
ises. Third, in order to avoid the offense that may come from preach¬
ing the complete Gospel, some simply would regard creation as
unimportant. God, however, considered it so important that it was
the topic of H is first revelation. The first chapter of Genesis is the
very foundation of the rest of the biblical record. If the foundation
is undermined, it will not be long until the superstructure built up¬
on it collapses as well. Should the first chapters of the B ibie prove
untrustworthy, upon what basis would one conclude that those
which follow merit any confidence? Fourth, many Christians today
have overlooked the impact on their own faith of not teaching
what God has said about creation. G. Richard C ulp stated it well.

Introduction:

The Importance of Beliefs Regarding Origins

One who doubts the Genesis account will not be the same
man he once was, for his attitude toward Holy Scripture
has been eroded by false teaching. Genesis is repeatedly re¬
ferred to in the N ew Testament, and it cannot be separated
from the total Christian message (1975, pp. 160-161).

Lastly, however, some Christians—afflicted with spiritual myopia
—have advised us to "just preach Christ," all the while ignoring, or
being uninformed of, the fact that C hrist was the C reator before H e
became (in a physical sense) the Redeemer, and that H is finished
work of salvation is meaningful only in light of H is finished work of
creation (H ebrews 4:3-10). Furthermore, Christ and His inspired
writers spoke often on the topic of creation and its relevance. The
first eleven chapters of Genesis, sometimes referred to as the "cre¬
ation chapters," are an integral part of the biblical record. They are
not unsightly warts or malignant tumors that may be excised, some¬
how leaving the remainder of that record intact. If these teachings
turn out to be either mythical or false, it impeaches not only their tes¬
timony, but that of the Lord as well, for H e accepted them as both
correct and reliable, and used them often as a basis for H is instruc¬
tions and commandments in the N ew Testament. The teachings of
M OSes and C hrist are inextricably linked. As j esus said to the unbe¬
lieving] ewsof Hisday: "For if ye believed M oses, ye would believe
me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall
ye believe my words?” (| ohn 5:46-47).] ohn Whitcomb observed:

It is the privilege of these men to dispense with an historical
Adam if they so desire. But they do not at the same time
have the privilege of claiming that C hrist spoke the truth.

Adam and Christ stand or fall together... (1972, p. 111).

Why is this so? And why is a correct understanding of origins
so important? Simply put, the answer is this: "If there is no creation,
there is nothing else. If there is no Creator, then there is no Saviour
either" (Segraves, 1973, p. 24). Ultimately, a proper understanding
of creation depends upon a proper understanding of Christ, and
vice versa. In Romans 5:14, Paul spoke of Adam as "a figure [tu-

Introduction:

The Importance of Beliefs Regarding Origins

pos, type] of him who was to come”—which no doubt explains why,
in the great "resurrection chapter" of the New T estament (1 Corin¬
thians 15), the apostle wrote by inspiration:

The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam be¬
came a life-giving spirit. The first man is of the earth, earthy:
the second man is of heaven...and as we have borne the im¬
age of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heav¬
enly (vss. 45-48).

Adam was thus a "type” of C hrist; the two stand or fall together,

THE IMPLICATIONS AND
CONSEQUENCES OF BELIEF SYSTEMS

These concepts merit serious attention. M ost rational, reason¬
able people would agree that actions have consequences. If a man
commits a crime, is pursued and apprehended by law enforcement
officers, tried by a jury of his peers, and sentenced to life in the pen¬
itentiary or death in the electric chair, who is responsible? When an
individual decides to act, is it not true that ultimately the consequences
of those actions fall squarelyon his or her shoulders? Indeed, actions
do have consequences.

But so do beliefs and ideas. Isthat not one reason why the spo¬
ken word is so powerful. The ability to elucidate an idea via a speech,
lecture, or other oral presentation can produce astonishing con¬
sequences. T hink, for example, of the late president of the U nited
States, j ohn F. Kennedy, who inspired Americans with his"Ask
not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for
your country" inaugural speech. 0 n the heels of that idea—pre¬
sented so eloquently by a dashing, young, newly elected, and ex¬
tremely popular president—volunteerism in America grew at an un¬
precedented rate. Or, reflect upon another presentation in our na¬
tion's capital by the slain civil rights leader, Martin Luther King] r.
The moving oratory contained in his "I have a dream" speech cap¬
tured the attention of an entire nation, and culminated in legislation
aimed at protecting the rights of all citizens, regardless of ethnic
background, skin color, or religious beliefs.

Introduction:

The Importance of Beliefs Regarding Origins

Beliefs and ideas presented via the written word are no less pow¬
erful. Ponder such documents as the hallowed U nited States Consti¬
tution that serves as the basis for the freedoms every citizen en¬
joys. Or contemplate the beloved Declaration of Independence
that guarantees to every American man, woman, and child certain
"unalienable rights.” Throughout the history of mankind, the writ¬
ten word has expressed ideas that manifested the ability to free men
and women (e.g. the English Magna Carta) or to enslave them
(e.g., Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf).

Indeed, beliefs and ideas—like actions—have consequences. Prom¬
inent humanist M artin Gardner devoted an entire chapter in one of
his books to "The Relevance of Belief Systems," in an attempt to ex¬
plain that what a person bel ieves profoundly influences how a
person acts (1988, pp. 57-64). In his book. Does It Matter What
I Believe?, Millard Erickson, wrote that there are numerous reasons

...why having correct beliefs is important. Our whole lives are
inevitably affected by the real world around us, so what we
believe about it is of the utmost importance.... What we be¬
lieve about reality does not change the truth, nor its effect
upon us. Correct belief, however, enables us to know the truth
as it is, and then to take appropriate action, so that it will
have the best possible effect upon our lives. H aving correct
beliefs is also necessary because of the large amount and va¬
riety of incorrect beliefs which are about (1992, pp. 12,13).

P ut simply, it does matter what we believe. Especially is this true
when it comes to the topics of creation and evolution, since in this
area we are dealing with complete cosmogonies (i.e., entire world
views). Consider the following.

Evolution and Ethics

Although it is rare to see evolutionists actually admit it, the sim¬
ple fact of the matter is that belief in evolution produces a society
that is not a very pleasant one in which to live. Several years ago,
British evolutionist Richard Dawkins [who has described himself
as "a fairly militant atheist, with a fair degree of hostility toward reli¬
gion" (see Bass, 1990,124[4]:86)] authored a book titled The Self-

Introduction:

The Importance of Beliefs Regarding Origins

ish Gene, in which he set forth his theory of genetic determin¬
ism. In summarizing the basic thesis of the book, Dawkins said:
"You are for nothing. Y ou are here to propagate your selfish
genes. There is no higher purpose in life" (Bass, 124[4]:60).
Dawkins explained:

I am not advocating a morality based on evolution. I am say¬
ing how things have evolved. I am not saying how we hu¬
mans morally ought to behave.... My own feeling isthata
human society based simply on the gene’s law of uni¬
versal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty so¬
ciety in which to live. But unfortunately, however much we
may deplore something, it does not stop it being true (1989,
pp. 2,3, emp. added).

Dawkins is correct in his assessment that a society based on the truth¬
fulness of evolution would be "a very nasty" place to live. B ut why?
The answer has to do with theimplicationsof belief in evolution.

Ethics generally is viewed as the system or code by which atti¬
tudes and actions are determined to be either right or wrong. B ut
the truth ofthe matter is that if evolution is correct, and there is no
God, man exists in an environment where "anything goes." Rus¬
sian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky, in The Brothers Karamazov
(1880), had one of his characters (Ivan) say that in the absence of
God, everything is allowed. French existential philosopher, J ean
Paul Sartre, wrote:

Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist, and man
isin consequence forlorn, for he cannotfind anything to de¬
pend upon either within or outside himself.... Nor, on the oth¬
er hand, IfGod does not exist, are we provided with any val¬
ues or commands that could legitimize our behavior (1961,
p. 485).

Sartre contended that whatever one chooses to do is right; value
is attached to the choice itself so that "...we can never choose evil"
(1966, p. 279). These men are correct about one thing. If evolu¬
tion is true and there is no God, "anything goes" is the name ofthe
game. Thus, it is impossible to formulate a system of ethics by which
one objectively can differentiate "right" from "wrong." Agnostic phi¬
losopher Bertrand Russell observed:

Introduction:

The Importance of Beliefs Regarding Origins

We feel that the man who brings widespread happiness at
the expense of misery to himself Is a better man than the man
who brings unhappiness to others and happiness to himself.

I do not know of any rational ground for this view, or, per¬
haps, for the somewhat more rational view that whatever
the majority desires (called utilitarian hedonism) Is prefera¬
ble to whatthe minority desires. These are truly ethical prob¬
lems but I do not know of any way In which they can be solved
except by politics or war. All that I can find to say on this sub¬
ject Is that an ethical opinion can only be defended by an
ethical axiom, but, if the axiom is not accepted, there
is no way of reaching a rational conclusion (1969, 3:

29, emp. added, parenthetical item in orig.).

With no way to reach a rational conclusion on what is ethical,
man finds himself adrift in a chaotic sea of despair where "might
makes right,” where "the strong subjugate the weak," and where each
man does what is right in his own eyes. This is not a system of ethics,
but rather a society driven by anarchy.

Evolution and Morality

M orality is the character of being in accord with the principles
or standards of right conduct. G eorge Gaylord Simpson, H arvard's
late, eminent evolutionist, argued that "man is the result of a pur¬
poseless and materialistic process that did not have him in mind,"
yet admitted that "good and evil, right and wrong, concepts
irrelevant in nature except from the human viewpoint, be¬
come real and pressing features of the whole cosmos as
viewed by man..,because morals arise only in man" (1967, p. 346,
emp. added). Simpson therefore concluded: "Discovery that the uni¬
verse apart from man or before his coming lacks and lacked any pur¬
pose or plan has the inevitable corollary that the workings of the uni¬
verse cannot provide any automatic, universal, eternal, or absolute
ethical criteria of right and wrong" (p. 346).

If such concepts as "good and evil, right and wrong" are "real
and pressing features," how, then, should morals be determined?
Since man is viewed as little more than the last animal among many
to be produced by the long, meandering process of evolution, this

Introduction:

The Importance of Beliefs Regarding Origins

becomes problematic. In their book, Origins, Richard Leakey and
Roger Lewin wrote: "There is now a critical need for a deep aware¬
ness that, no matter how special we are as an animal, we are
still part of the greater balance of nature...” (1977, p. 256, emp. ad¬
ded). Charles Darwin declared: "There is no fundamental difference
between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties"
(asquoted in Francis Darwin, 1898,1:64). A lion is not plagued by
guilt after killing a gazelle's infant offspring for its noon meal. A dog
does not experience remorse after stealing a bone from one of its
peers. Since no other animal throughout evolutionary history has
been able to locate and live by moral standards, should we some¬
how trust a "naked ape" (to use zoologist Desmond M orris' color¬
ful expression from his 1967 book by that title) to do any better?
Darwin himself complained: "Can the mind of man, which has, as
I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that posses¬
sed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand con¬
clusions?” (as quoted in Francis Darwin, 1898, 1:282).

M atter—in and of itself—is impotent to evolve any sense of mor¬
al consciousness. If there is no purpose in the U niverse, as Simp¬
son and others have asserted, then there is no purpose to moral¬
ity or ethics. B ut the concept of a purposeless morality, or a purpose¬
less ethic, is irrational. Unbelieftherefore must contend, and does
contend, that there is no ultimate standard of moral/ ethical truth,
and that morality and ethics, at best, are relative and situational.
That being the case, who could ever suggest, correctly, that some¬
one else's conduct was "wrong," orthata man "ought" or"ought
not" to do thus and so? The simple fact of the matter is that infi¬
delity cannot explain the origin of morality and ethics.

Evolution and Hedonism

FI edonism is the philosophy which argues that the aim of "mor¬
al" conduct is the attainment of the greatest possible pleasure with
the greatest possible avoidance of pain. 0 ne of the tenets of human¬
ism, as expressed in the FI umanist M anifesto of 1973, suggested,
for example:

Introduction:

The Importance of Beliefs Regarding Origins

...we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by or¬
thodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sex¬
ual conduct. The right to birth control, abortion, and divorce
should be recognized. While we do not approve of exploit¬
ive, denigrating forms of sexual expression, neither do we wish
to prohibit, by law or social sanction, sexual behavior between
consenting adults. The many varieties of sexual exploration
should notin themselves be considered "evil." Without coun¬
tenancing mindless permissiveness or unbridled promiscuity,
a civilized society should be a tolerant one. Short of harm¬
ing others or compelling them to do likewise, individuals should
be permitted to express their sexual proclivities and pursue
their lifestyles as they desire (pp. 18-19, emp. in orig.).

What have been the consequences of this kind of thinking? Sex¬
ually transmitted diseases are occurring in epidemic proportions.
Teenage pregnancies are rampant. Babies are born already infected
with deadly diseases (such as aids) because their mothers con¬
tracted the diseases during their pregnancies and passed them on
to their unborn offspring. In many places divorces are so common
that they equal or outnumber marriages. J ails are filled to overflow¬
ing with rapists, stalkers, and child molesters. What else, pray tell,
will have to go wrong before it becomes apparent that attempts
to live without God are futile?

Evolution and the Value of Human Life

H aving grown up under a father who was a veterinarian, and per¬
sonally having served as a professor in the College of Veterinary M ed-
icine at Texas A&M University for a number of years, I have seen
firsthand the fate of animals that have suffered irreparable injuries,
have become riddled with incurable diseases, or have become too
old and decrepit to control their bodily functions. I have had to stand
by helplessly and watch my own father, or one of my colleagues, dis¬
charge a firearm to end the life of a horse because of a broken leg
that could not be healed. I have had to draw into a syringe the life¬
ending drug to be inserted into the veins of someone's pet dog to
"put it to sleep” because the combination of senility and disease

Introduction:

The Importance of Beliefs Regarding Origins

had taken a toll that not even the ablest practitioner of the healing
arts could reverse. It is neither a pleasant task, nor a pretty sight. But
while a pet dog or champion 4-H gelding may have held a place of
esteem in a child's heart, the simple fact of the matter is that the dog
is not someone's father or mother, and the horse is not someone's
brother or sister. These are animals—which is why we shoot horses.

In the evolutionary scheme of things, however, man occupies the
same status. H e may be more knowledgeable, more intellectual, and
more scheming than his counterparts in the animal kingdom, B ut
he still is an animal. And so the question is bound to arise: Why should
man be treated any differently once his life no longer is deemed worth
living? Truth be told, there is no logical reason that he should. From
cradle to grave, life—from an evolutionary vantage point—is com¬
pletely expendable. And so it should be—at least if Charles Darwin's
comments are to be taken at face value. In his book. The Descent
of Man, he wrote:

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated:
and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of
health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost
to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the
imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws:
and our medical men exert their utmost skills to save the life
of everyone to the last moment. There is reason to believe
that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak
constitution wouid formeriy have succumbed to smaii-pox.

Thus the weak members of civiiised societies propagate their
kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic
animais wiii doubt that this must be highiy injurious to the
race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care
wrongiy directed, ieads to the degeneration of a domestic race;
but excepting in the case of man himseif, hardiy any one is
so ignorant as to aiiow his worst animais to breed (1870, p.

501).

In Darwin's day (and even in the early parts of this century), some
attempted to apply this view to the human race via the concept of
eugenics.

Introduction:

The Importance of Beliefs Regarding Origins

By 1973, the United States Supreme Court, in a 7-to-2 vote on
J anuary 22, decided that the embryo growing within the human
womb no longer is "human.” Rather, it is a "thing" that may be rip¬
ped out, slaughtered, and tossed into the nearest dumpster. And the
inordinate lengths to which evolutionists will go in order to justify
such a position defy description. As an example, consider the case
of the late evolutionist, Carl Sagan, and his wife, Ann Druyan. In an
article titled "The Q uestion of A bortion: A Search for the Answers”
they coauthored for the April 22,1990 issue of Parade, these two
humanists argued for the ethical permissibility of human abortion
on the grounds that the fetus—growing within a woman's body for
several months following conception—is not a human being. Thus,
they concluded, the killing of this tiny creature is not murder.*

A nd what was the basis for this assertion? Sagan and D ruyan ar¬
gued their case by subtly employing the antiquated concept known
as "embryonic recapitulation” (sometimes referred to by its catch-
phrase, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"), which suggests that
as the human embryo develops, the growth of the individual (on¬
togeny) repeats (recapitulates) the evolutionary history of its an¬
cestors (phylogeny)-traveling through such stages as an amoeba¬
like blob, a fish, an amphibian, a reptile, etc. Therefore, observing
the human embryo growing would be like watching a "silent mov¬
ing picture" of past evolution. They wrote that the embryo first is
"a kind of parasite" that eventually looks like a "segmented worm."
Further alterations, they suggested, reveal "gill arches" like that of a
"fish or amphibian." Supposedly, "reptilian" features emerge, and
later give rise to "mammalian...pig-like" traits. Bytheend ofthe sec¬
ond month, according to these two authors, the creature resembles
a "primate but is still not quite human" (1990, p. 6).

* Dr. Sagan died in December 1996. Oneyear iater, in 1997, his book, Billions and
Billions, was published posthumously. Chapter 15 of that book (pp. 163-179), titled
"Abortion: Is It Possible to be both 'Pro-Life' and 'Pro-Choice'?," contains the entire
textof the Parade article, along with Dr. Sagan’s comments about the unnerving pub¬
lic response the magazine received following its publication (380,000 people tele¬
phoned Parade's offices in a matter of days).

Introduction:

The Importance of Beliefs Regarding Origins

The concept of embryonic recapitulation first was set forth in
1866 by the renowned German scientist and artist, Ernst H aeckel.
Shortly thereafter, however, it came to light that Dr, Haeckel had
used his art talent to falsify some of the drawings that accompanied
his research articles on animal and human embryos, in order to make
it appear as if embryonic recapitulation were true—when, in fact,
it was not. Eventually, he was found guilty of scientific fraud by a
jury of his peers at a trial held at the U niversity of] ena where he
taught, and he lived much of the rest of his life in disrepute. Scien¬
tists have known for well over a century that H aeckel's theory was
based on fraudulent data, that it is without any foundation what¬
soever in scientific fact, and that both he and it have been thor¬
oughly discredited. As long ago as 1957, George Gaylord Simpson
and his coauthors wrote in their widely used biology textbook. Life:
An Introduction to Biology: "It is now firmly established that on¬
togeny does not repeat phylogeny" (1957, p. 352, emp. ad¬
ded). Notice, however, the authors' comment to their student read¬
ers, which appeared as a footnote at the bottom of the same page:

You may well ask why we bother you with principles that
turned out to be wrong. There are two reasons. In the first
place, belief in recapitulation became so widespread
that it is still evident in some writings about biology
and evolution. Y ou should know therefore what recapitu¬
lation Is supposed to be and you should know that it does
not really occur (emp. added).

Sadly, even though scientists have known for more than a cen¬
tury that embryonic recapitulation is wrong, Simpson and his co¬
authors were absolutely correct in their assessment that "belief in
recapitulation became so widespread that it is still evident in some
writings about biology and evolution," Forexample, intheOctober
1981 issue of Science Digest, evolutionist Isaac Asimov and cre¬
ationist Duane Gish participated in a written debate (at the invita¬
tion of the magazine's editors) under the title of "The Genesis War."
During his portion of the debate. Dr. Gish correctly pointed out:

Introduction:

The Importance of Beliefs Regarding Origins

The idea of embryological recapitulation—that at successive
stages of development a fetus resembles a fish, amphibian,
reptile and, finally, mammal—is now a thoroughly discredited
theory and should be expunged from textbooks (1981, 89
[9]:83).

Surprisingly, Dr, Asimov replied:

I don't know what aspect of embryological recapitulation is
now "thoroughly discredited" in the eyes of a creationist. H ow-
ever, the human fetus in the course of its development
has a tail and has indications of gills (89[9]:83, emp. ad¬
ded).

An authorof Dr, Asimov's stature (he wrote more than 500 vol¬
umes during his lifetime!) and preeminence in the evolutionary com¬
munity should have known better than to make such statements.
As the eminent evolutionist of Great Britain, Sir Arthur Keith, had
stated quite bluntly almost fifty years earlier:

It was expected that the embryo would recapitulate the fea¬
tures of its ancestors from the lowest to the highest forms in
the animal kingdom. Now that the appearances of the em¬
bryo at all stages are known, the general feeling is one of dis¬
appointment; the human embryo at no stage is anthropoid
in appearance. The embryo of the mammal never re¬
sembles the worm, the fish, or the reptile. Embryology
provides no support whatsoever for the evolutionary
hypothesis (1932, p. 94, emp. added).

U nfortunately, statements like Dr. Asimov's are not restricted to
the time period of two decades or more ago. In his 1997 book on
the origin of the U niverse and life in that U niverse. The Whole She¬
bang, evolutionist Timothy Ferris wrote:

Strong evidence of biological conservancy may also be found
in embryology, where it gave rise to the saying that "ontog¬
eny recapitulates phylogeny." A human embryo grows gills
like its fish ancestors, and then tears them down and re¬
builds them into lungs (p. 197, emp. added).

Dr. Ferris could not be more wrong than he is. A biology text¬
book published well over two decades earlier noted: "Actually these
'gills' are alternating ridges and furrows on the right and left sides

Introduction:

The Importance of Beliefs Regarding Origins

of the neck. They never develop into gills. They remain covered
by a thin membrane and never have respiratory function” (M oore
and Slusher, 1974, p, 434, emp. in orig.).

Twenty-five years later, evolutionist] effrey Schwartz concurred
when he wrote in his 1999 volume. Sudden Origins:

For Haeckel, the presumed glll-sllt stage In human ontogeny
was the equivalent of an adult fish. (In reality, such a stage
does not occur; there are only the folds of the gill arches,
which, among other structures, develop Into our hyoid bone,

Inner ear bones, and jaws.) [p. 164, emp. added)].

Why then—if we have known for well over a hundred years that
H aeckel's ideas are wrong—have evolutionists continued to use em¬
bryonic recapitulation as a "proof" of evolution? j ohn Tyier Bon¬
ner, who served for many years as the head of the biology depart¬
ment at P rinceton U niversity, succinctly answered that question when
he admitted: "We may have known for almost a hundred years that
H aeckel's blastaea-gastraea theory of the origin of the metazoa is
probably nonsense, but it is so clear-cut, so simple, so easy to
hand full-blown to the student" (1961,49:240, emp, added).
Apparently, the fact that it is not true matters little.

T hus, when the time came that C arl Sagan and A nn D ruyan des¬
perately needed to find something—anything—within science to jus¬
tify their personal belief that abortion is not murder, they simply res¬
urrected the antiquated, erroneous concept of embryonic recapitu¬
lation, dusted it off, and tried to give it some renewed credibility as
an appropriate reason why abortion should not be considered as
illegal and homicidal. Surely, this shows the lengths to which evo¬
lutionists will go in attempts to substantiate their theory, and the in¬
ordinate practices that the theory generates when followed to its
logical conclusion.

According to Darwin, "weaker" members of society are unfit and,
in keeping with the laws of nature, would not survive under normal
conditions. Who is weaker than a tiny baby growing in the womb?
The baby cannot defend himself, cannot feed himself, cannot even

Introduction:

The Importance of Beliefs Regarding Origins

speak for himself. H e (or she) is completely and totally dependent
upon the mother for life. Since nature "selects against" the weaker
animal, and since man is an animal, why should man expect any def¬
erential treatment?

Once those who are helpless, weak, and young become expend¬
able, who will be next? Will it be the helpless, weak, and old? Will it
be those whose infirmities make them "unfit" to survive in a soci¬
ety that values the beautiful and the strong? Will it be those who are
lame, blind, or maimed? Will it be those whose 10 falls below a cer¬
tain point, or whose skin is a different color?

M ore and more there is a clamoring in this country to kill the han¬
dicapped, the weak, the old, the terminally ill, and others with a "di¬
minished quality of life." Richard M cC ormick of the K ennedy C enter
for the Study of Reproduction and Bioethics at Georgetown Univer¬
sity has suggested: "Life is a value to be preserved only insofar as it
contains some potentiality for human relationships" (1974). The re¬
nowned Nobel laureate, Francis Crick, has urged that "no newborn
infant should be declared human until it has passed certain tests re¬
garding its genetic endowment and. ..if it fails these tests it forfeits
the right to live” (asquoted in Howard and Rifkin, 1977, p. 81). It
hardly is surprising, then, to hear) oseph Fletcher (of situation eth¬
ics fame) suggest that any individual with an iq of 20 or less is not
a person, and that anyone ranging from 20 to 40 is only marginally
so (see Lygre, 1979, p. 63).

T wenty-five years ago, Robert C ooke of the U niversity of Wis¬
consin testified before a U .5. Senate select subcommittee that an es¬
timated "2,000 infants a year are dying in America because treat¬
ment has been withheld or stopped" (as quoted in M arx, 1975, p. 9).
Almost thirty years ago, an investigation carried out during a three-
year period (from 1970 to 1972)attheYale/New Haven Hospital
in Connecticut uncovered the fact that 43 babies died at this one
hospital when doctors decided they were "unfit to live" and there¬
fore withdrew food, water, etc. (Lygre, 1979, p. 65). Lest anyone
wonders if such things still are occurring decades later, perhaps we

Introduction:

The Importance of Beliefs Regarding Origins

should be reminded of the now-famous "Baby Doe” case in an Amer¬
ican hospital (see Davis, 1985, pp. 158ff.). Doctors recommended
that the newborn baby girl be allowed to die, due to the fact that, in
their opinion, she was too badly deformed to live. 0 oan H odgman
of the U niversity of California School of M edicine once admitted: "If
we have a baby that I know is malformed beyond hope, I make no
attempt to preserve life" (as quoted in Lygre, 1979, p. 66).] The
parents accepted the doctors' advice, and the hospital staff withdrew
food, water, and other reasonable care. The government stepped in
to state that a violation of the baby girl's civil rights had occurred (re¬
member "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?). As President
of the U nited States, Ronald Reagan ordered the Secretary of the De¬
partment of H ealth and H uman Services to deliver strict rules to hos¬
pitals receiving federal funds—rules which made it clear that all nec¬
essary steps were to be taken for the continuation of human life. A
callous, depraved view of the value of human life had made such ex¬
traordinary governmental intervention necessary.

Bentley G lass once suggested that "no parents will in that future
time have a right to burden society with a malformed or a mentally
incompetent child" (1971,171:23-29). in his book. The Sanctity
of Lifeand theCriminal Law, Glanville Williams, strongly advo¬
cated the legalization of both "humanitarian infanticide” and "eutha¬
nasia for handicapped children" (1957). j oseph Fletcher even went
so far as to state that we are "morally obliged" to end the lives of all
those who are terminally ill (1979, p. 152). William Gaylin, a pro¬
fessor of psychiatry and law at Columbia University, declared: "It
used to be easy to know what we wanted for our children, and now
the best for our children might mean deciding which ones to kill. We
have always wanted the best for our grandparents, and now that
might mean killing them" (as quoted in M arx, 1975, p. 3). Some
in our society already are calling for just such "cleansing" processes
to be made legal, using such household euphemisms as "euthana¬
sia” or "mercy killing.” After all, we shoot horses, don't we?

Introduction:

The Importance of Beliefs Regarding Origins

CONCLUSION

Richard Dawkins was correct when he suggested that "a human
society based simply on the gene's law of universal ruthless selfish¬
ness would be a very nasty society in which to live." Indeed, actions
do have consequences. And beliefs do have implications.

Acceptance of the biblical doctrine of creation likewise has impli¬
cations. It implies, for example, that: (a) there is an eternal C reator;
(b) religion is God-ordained; (c) supernatural forces have been at work
in the past and therefore nature is not "all there is"; (d) man is a spe¬
cial creation produced by God "in H is image"; (e) there is an objec¬
tive standard for truth that provides guidelines for man's ethical and
moral conduct; and (f) after this life, there is another life yet to come.

Similarly, any attempt to merge the two systems of origins has
implications as well. That is the subject of this book. Some have sug¬
gested that there is not necessarily a dichotomy in the matter of ori¬
gins—that evolution and creation need not be separate, distinct, and
opposing world views but instead may be happily combined (see,
for example, Sheler, 1999, pp. 49-56). While not impugning the
motives of those who have suggested such a compromise, it is my
position that such a marriage is both unwarranted and unscriptur-
al, as well as unworthy of any support from those who revere the
Word of God as verbally inspired and authoritative in these matters.

One of the most respected evolutionists in America during the
past six decades was the late George Gaylord Simpson quoted above
—known affectionately among his colleagues as "Mr. Evolution"
because of his lifelong, ardent defense of their theory. It is rare in¬
deed that a creationist finds himself in agreement with an evolution¬
ist. Butin his book. This View of Life, Dr. Simpson addressed the
compromise position oftheistic evolution, and commented on it in
such a way that I find myself agreeing with him. In discussing three
well-known men who tried to defend theistic evolution (LeCompte
du Nouy, Theilhard deChardin, and Edmund W. Sinnot), Dr. Simp¬
son remarked:

Introduction:

The Importance of Beliefs Regarding Origins

...Three great men and great souls, and all have flatly failed
In their quest. It Is unlikely that others can succeed where
they did not, andsurely I know of none who has. The attempt
to build an evolutionary theory mingling mysticism [his eu¬
phemism for creation— bt] and science has only tended to vi¬
tiate the science. I strongly suspectthat It has been equally dam¬
aging on the religious side... (1964, p. 232).

Those who attempt to defend various compromises of the bibli¬
cal account of creation have failed, and will continue to fail, because
their efforts represent an illegitimate amalgamation of two views—
creation and evolution—that are diametrically opposed and that,
therefore, logically cannot be conjoined. While the compromisers
no doubt have harmed science, as Simpson suggested, the dam¬
age they have inflicted on the religious side has been far worse. The
loss of respect for the B ibie as the inspired Word of G od that even¬
tually results from the acceptance of various creation compromises
is utterly tragic.

Even more tragic, however, is the ultimate effect of such compro¬
mises on a person's faith. Sooner or later, the Bible believer comes
to realize that if the first eleven chapters of Genesis are not trust¬
worthy, neither are those that follow. The number of people who
have had their faith weakened, or destroyed, as a result of such com¬
promises is inestimable. Surely it is one of the bitterest of ironies that
those who were so determined to find a compromise allowing them
to believe the biblical record are those who, because of that very com¬
promise, ended up believing the B ibIe less and less until finally they
believed it not at all. Sadly, the lesson learned far too late was that
the compromise was unnecessary in the first place, as the follow¬
ing chapters document.

Origins and
Atheistic Evolution

O rigins. The mere mention of the word has the power to
evoke deep-seated emotions, because this is one issue on
which almost everyone has an opinion. From the very earliest times,
men have inquired about their origin, and the question, "Whence
have I come?” has not been far from either their minds or their lips.
In our day and age it often is the case that any discussion of origins
stirs quite a controversy, as proponents of competing theories battle
each other in public debates, in the news media, in the classroom,
in the courtroom, and through the printed word.

Such controversy, however, is not always bad. While it is true
that at times more heat than light has been generated, this is not nec¬
essarily the case. Not infrequently, people who have had the temer¬
ity to question have been rewarded by the fruits of their inquiry. In
many instances, people have been caused for the first time to con¬
sider seriously (or reconsider) their own privately held positions on
these matters. They have sought answers, and have been amazed
at the evidence (or lack of evidence) supporting their belief system

Origins and
Atheistic Evolution

—when previously they may have been somewhat complacent about
the matter of their own beginnings. Oftentimes, as people have ex¬
plored the matter of their ultimate origin, they also have discovered,
quite inadvertently, certain implications that invariably accompany
the suggested scenarios—implications that affect them in their ev¬
eryday lives as they consider such weighty matters as ethics, mor¬
als, truth, and a host of other concepts of real importance to human¬
kind. The controversy over origins (rather, the end results of that con¬
troversy) may have proven either a blight or a blessing, but to those
who go to the trouble to investigate, one thing is certain: the quest
never is dull.

There are two fundamentally different, and diametrically opposed,
explanations for the origin of the U niverse, the origin of life in that
U niverse, and the origin of new types of varying life forms. Each of
these explanations is a cosmogony—an entire world view, or phi¬
losophy, of origins and destinies, of life and its meaning. 0 ne of these
cosmogonies is known as evolution (often referred to as organic
evolution, the theory of evolution, the evolution model, atheistic evo¬
lution, etc.). The second alternate and opposing view is creation (of¬
ten referred to as special creation, the theory of creation, the cre¬
ation model, etc.). In this chapter, I would like to define, and exam¬
ine, the concept of atheistic evolution. In the chapter that follows,

I will examine the concept of creation.

ATHEISTIC EVOLUTION DEFINED

The term "evolution” derives from the Latin word, evolvere,
which means literally to "unroll, unfold, or change." The word "evo¬
lution" may be used legitimately to speak of a bud's development
into the flower, the metamorphosis of the butterfly, or even the pro¬
duction of new varieties of organisms.* H owever, this is not what
the average person has in mind when he speaks of evolution. In ev¬
eryday parlance, the word carries quite a different meaning.

* For a comprehensive discussion of the varied definitions of evoiution, see Baies
(1971, 2[3]:l-4).

Origins and
Atheistic Evolution

In 1960, G.A. Kerkut, the renowned British physiologist and
evolutionist, authored The Implications of Evolution. In that small-
but-powerful volume, he defined two theories of evolution that are
of importance for the discussion here. H e termed one of those the
Special Theory of Evolution.* This is the kind of evolution to which
practically all people subscribe, and over which there is no contro¬
versy. It suggests that limited change, within narrow limits, occurs
throughout all living things. I knowofno one who would denythis
point. Creationists agree to its factuality, as do atheistic evolution¬
ists. Y ears ago (to list just three examples), Brangus cattle, cockapoo
dogs, and 1,000+varieties of roses did not exist. Buttoday they do.
Why? Simply stated, it is because evolution has occurred.

But as everyone recognizes, this "evolution” produced only small
changes that did not cross what biologists refer to as "phylogenetic
boundaries.” T hat is to say, the B rangus is still a cow, the cockapoo
is still a dog, and (to employ an old adage), a rose by any other name
is still a rose. While the Special Theory of Evolution allows for change
within groups, it does not allow for change between groups. It
is not the Special Theory of Evolution that I will be investigating in
the pages that follow; rather, I intend to examine the other theory
of evolution mentioned by Kerkut.

In addition to the Special Theory, Dr. Kerkut also identified, de¬
fined, and discussed what he termed the General Theory of Evolu¬
tion.** H e stated: "0 n the other hand, there is the theory that all the
living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which it¬
self came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the 'Gen¬
eral Theory of Evolution'...” (1960, p. 157). This is what is referred
to commonly as organic evolution, atheistic evolution, or simply "evo¬
lution." Through the years, numerous investigators have offered var¬
ious definitions of evolution. The same year that Dr. Kerkut offered
his definitions, Simpson wrote:

* The Special Theory of Evolution sometimes is referred to by the term microevolu¬
tion.

** The General Theory of Evolution sometimes is referred to by the term macroevolu¬
tion.

Origins and
Atheistic Evolution

Evolution is a fully natural process, inherent in the physical
properties of the universe, by which life arose in the first
place, and by which all living things, past or present, have
since developed, divergently and progressively (1960,131:

969).

This definition has been accepted widely because of: (a) Dr, Simp¬
son's reputation in the evolutionary community; and (b) its succinct
statement of what evolution is and allegedly does. Previously, Simp¬
son and his coauthors had defined the theory by suggesting:

F i rst, th ere i s th e th eo ry 0 f evo I uti 0 n i n th e str i ct sen se. T h i s
states that all living organisms have evolved from common
ancestors in a gradual historical process of change and di¬
versification. The theory rejects the notion that all organisms
were designed and created at the beginning of time (Simp¬
son, et al., 1957, pp. 25-26).

D r. Simpson's H arvard colleague, the famous zoologist P .D, Dar¬
lington, reiterated these same points twenty-three years later.

The outstanding evolutionary mystery now is how matter has
originated and evolved, why it has taken its present form in
the universe and on the earth, and why it is capable of form¬
ing itself into complex living sets of molecules. This capability
is inherent in matter as we know it, in its organization and en¬
ergy.... It is a fundamental evolutionary generalization that no
external agent imposes life on matter. M after takes the form
it does because it has the inherent capacity to do so. This is
one of the most remarkable and mysterious facts about our
universe: that matter exists that has the capacity to form itself
into the most complex patterns of life (1980, pp. 15,234).

While disavowing itsfactuality, creationists agree with evolution¬
ists about the definition of their theory, 0 ne creationist publication
defined evolution as:

...the hypothesis that millions of years ago lifeless matter,
acted upon by natural forces, gave origin to one or more mi¬
nute living organisms which have since evolved into all liv¬
ing and extinct plants and animals, including man. The the¬
ory of evolution has to do with the origin of life and the origin
of species, and should not be confused with the ordinary de¬
velopment or natural history of living plants and animals which
we see all around us and which is an entirely different phe-

Origins and
Atheistic Evolution

nomenon. In its wider aspects, the theory of evolution em¬
braces the origin and development of the whole universe...
(Evolution, n.d., p. 7).

Wilbert H, Rusch, a creationist, defined evolution as:

...the theory that large groups or kinds of basic organisms
change with the passage of time. T hen it is held that their de¬
scendants will now be as different from them as they were
different from their ancestors. It would follow that, given the
passage of a sufficient time span, the life forms at any given
point in time will be radically different from the life forms
present at any time during the past. It really involves what
might be termed transspecific change. According to this the¬
ory, modern plants and animals are all the modified descen¬
dants of plants and animals from the past. All presenttaxa
are then somehow descended from a common ancestry over
vast periods of time. This would call for a continuum from
the beginning of life to the present, with no distinct groups.

This continuum would be made up of all fossil as well as pres¬
ent forms of life... (1991, pp. 13-14).

Notice the common thread running through each definition. First,
evolution is a ful ly natural process. Second, no "external agent"
(i.e., "Creator") is responsible for inanimate matter becoming ani¬
mate; evolution "rejects the notion that all organisms were designed
and created....” Third, all life descended (evolved) from a common
source, which owes its own existence to inorganic matter. Fourth,
evolution is a process of "change and diversification" which ulti¬
mately produces living organisms that develop "divergently and pro¬
gressively." In summary then, by definition evolution precludes the
supernatural, a C reator, any divine guidance of the natural proces¬
ses involved, and the creation of organisms as separate and distinct
entities not having descended from a common ancestor.

IS ATHEISTIC EVOLUTION POPULAR?

Although atheistic evolution is not nearly as old a viewpoint as
creation, it has amassed to itself a rather large following among the
peoples of the world. R.L. Wysong, in his book. The Creation-Evo-

Origins and
Atheistic Evolution

lution Controversy, commented that "It is downright hard to find
anyone who does not believe in evolution in one form or another”
(1976, p. 63). Conway Zirkle stated that "practically every educated
man believes in evolution, ...evolution is incorporated in the think¬
ing of our time" (1959, p. 19). A university biology textbook used
widely for almost two decades began with these words:

Organic evolution is the greatest principle in biology. Its im¬
plications extend far beyond the confines of that science, ram¬
ifying into all phases of human life and activity. Accordingly,
understanding of evolution should be part of the intellectual
equipment of all educated persons (Moody, 1962, p. lx).

For the past century, evolution has been in the limelight. And for
the past quarter of a century or more, it has been taught as scien¬
tific fact in many elementary, junior high, and senior high schools,
as well as in most colleges and universities. AsStephenj .Gould of
H arvard put it: "The fact of evolution is as well established as any¬
thing in science (as secure as the revolution of the earth around the
sun)..." [1987,8[1]:64, parenthetical comment in orig.]. There can
be little doubt that belief in evolution is popular, B ut why is this the
case?

WHY DO PEOPLE BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION?

As we make our way through the pilgrimage called "life," on oc¬
casion we invariably stop to reflect upon the nature and meaning of
our own existence, because such matters variously enthrall, excite,
or intrigue us. Nowhere is this more evident than in regard to our ul¬
timate origin, Few there must be who do not pause, at some point
in their earthly sojourn, to ponder such topics as the origin of the
U niverse, the origin of planet Earth, the origin of various life forms
on the Earth, the possibility of life on other planets, and even their
own origin and destiny,

0 ne of the most mind-numbing mysteries for those who do not
believe in evolution is trying to understand the people who do. [Per¬
haps evolutionists feel the same exasperation in regard to creation-

Origins and
Atheistic Evolution

ists' beliefs, but on that point I am lessqualified to judge.] This ob¬
servation is not intended to be derogatory, but is offered merely
as a statement of fact. As one who writes and lectures often on the
topics of creation and evolution, I frequently am asked the question:
"Why do people believe in evolution?" Often the question is phrased
in what are intended to be complimentary terms: "Why is it that so
many obviously intelligent people believe in evolution?" Neither
question is easy to answer because generally the querist wants a sim¬
ple, concise response. It is difficult for him to understand why peo¬
ple whom he accepts as "obviously intelligent" believe a concept such
as evolution that he, personally, considers so unworthy of acceptance
or recommendation by intelligent people. It has been my experience
that rarely is there a singular reply that can provide an answer to
such a question, because rarely is there just a single reason that can
explain adequately why a person believes what he does. Especially
is this true in regard to belief in evolution.

At times, the controversy that centers on the topics of creation
and evolution has generated more heat than light. This does not
necessarily have to be the case, however. In an open society, the
topic of origins, and the varying views that people hold on origins,
ultimately will be discussed; in fact, they should be discussed. But
because the subject matter has to do with deeply held convictions,
emotions often run high. One good way to avoid emotional en¬
tanglement, and the "more heat than light" syndrome that gener¬
ally accompanies it, is to work diligently to comprehend the other
person's position as completely as possible, and therefore to dis¬
cuss it as accurately and calmly as possible in any given situation.
That task is made easier if there exists—at the beginning of the dis¬
cussion—a basic understanding of why the person believes as he
does. Again, especially is this true in regard to belief in evolution.

While it may seem somewhat of a truism to suggest that peo¬
ple believe in evolution for a variety of reasons, realization of this
fact, and a legitimate exploration of the reasons people offer for

Origins and
Atheistic Evolution

believing what they do, can go a long way toward a better under¬
standing of opposing views found within the creation/evolution con¬
troversy. With better understanding comes improved communica¬
tion. And with improved communication comes increased oppor¬
tunity for dialogue—which can set the stage for the presentation of
other viewpoints that perhaps have not been considered previously
(e.g., in this particular instance, persuading the evolutionist to con¬
sider the evidence for creation).

As I attempt to respond to the question, "Why do so many ob¬
viously intelligent people believe in evolution?” I hope to be able
to provide a better comprehension of the system of organic evolu¬
tion, and of the people who accept it. Included among the reasons
why people believe in evolution are the following.

Reason #1

There can be little doubt that many today believe in evolution
simply because it is what they have been taught. As I stated earlier,
for the past quarter of a century or more evolution has been taught
as scientific fact in most educational settings—from kindergarten
through graduate school. Marshall and Sandra Hall noted:

In the first place, evolution is what is taught in the schools.

At least two, and in some cases three and four generations,
have used textbooks that presented it as proven fact. The
teachers, who for the most part learned it as truth, pass it
on as truth. Students are as thoroughly and surely indoctri¬
nated with the concept of evolution as students have ever
been indoctrinated with any unproven belief (1974, p. 10).

In their book. Why Scientists Accept Evolution, Bales and
Clark confirmed such an observation, "Evolution," they wrote, "is
taken for granted today and thus it is uncritically accepted by scien¬
tists as well as laymen. It is accepted by them today because it was
already accepted by others who went before them and under whose
direction they obtained their education" (1966, p. 106). People be¬
lieve in evolution because they have been taught that it is true.

Origins and
Atheistic Evolution

Reason #2

T 0 suggest that many people today accept evolution as true merely
because they have been taught to believe it does not tell the whole
story, however. Intellectual pride enters into the picture as well. Who
among us does not want to present at least the appearance of be¬
ing smart and well educated? Over the last century, we have been
led to believe that if we wish to be considered intelligent, then we
should believe in evolution, because intelligent people all over the
world believe in evolution. As H enry M orris well stated the issue:
",,,the main reason most educated people believe in evolution is
simply because they have been told that most educated people be¬
lieve in evolution!” (1963, p. 26).

Consider the hypothetical example of two college students dis¬
cussing their professors and courses. 0 ne of the students, J oe, asks
his friend, Mark, the following question: "Hey, Mark, do you believe
in evolution? M y professor says all smart folks do.” H onestly, what
is M ark supposed to say? If he says, "No, J oe, I don't believe in evo¬
lution,” by definition he has admitted to being outside the sphere
of all the "smart folks.” 0 n the other hand, if he says, "Y es, J oe, I do
believe in evolution,” he may be admitting to a belief based not on
an examination of the evidence, but on the idea that he does not
wish to be viewed by his peers as anything but "smart,” U ndoubt-
edly, many people today fall into this category. They do not accept
evolution because they have seen evidence that establishes it as true.
Rather, they believe it because doing so places them in the same cat¬
egory as others whom they consider to be intelligent.

Reason #3

F urther exacerbating the problem is the fact that evolution has
been given a "stamp of approval” by important spokespersons from
practically every field of human endeavor. While there have been
those from politics, the humanities, the arts, and other fields who
openly have defended evolution as factual, in no other area has this
defense been as pronounced as in the sciences. Because science has

Origins and
Atheistic Evolution

seen so many successes, and because these successes have been
so visible and well publicized, scientists have been granted an aura
of respectability that only can be envied by non-scientists. As a re¬
sult, when scientists champion a cause, people take notice. After all,
it is their workings through the scientific method that have eradi¬
cated smallpox, put men on the M oon, prevented polio, and length¬
ened life spans. We have grown used to seeing "experts” from vari¬
ous scientific disciplines ply their trade in an endless stream of amaz¬
ing feats. H eart surgery has become commonplace; organ trans¬
plants have become routine; space shuttles flying to the heavens
have become standard fare.

Thus, when evolution is presented as something that "all repu¬
table scientists believe," there are many who accept such a statement
at face value, and who fall in line with what they believe is a well-
proven dictum that has been enshrouded with the cloak of scien¬
tific respectability. As philosopher Paul Ricci has written: "The re¬
liability of evolution not only as a theory but as a principle of under¬
standing is not contested by the vast majority of biologists, geologists,
astronomers, and other scientists” (1986, p. 172).

Such statements leave the impression that evolution simply can¬
not be doubted by well-informed, intelligent people. The message
is: "All scientists believe it; so should you." And many do, because,
as M arshall and Sandra H all have inquired: "H ow, then, are peo¬
ple with little or no special knowledge of the various sciences and
related subjects to challenge the authorities? It is natural to accept
what 'experts' say, and most people do" (1974, p. 10).

The simple fact is, however, that truth is not determined by pop¬
ular opinion or majority vote. A thing may be, and often is, true even
when accepted only by the minority. Believing something based on
the assumption that "everyone else" also believes it often can lead
to disastrous results. As the late G uy N. Woods remarked: "It is dan¬
gerous to follow the multitude because the majority is almost al¬
ways on the wrong side in this world” (1982,124[1]:2).

Reason #4

Origins and
Atheistic Evolution

Without a doubt, there are many who believe in evolution be¬
cause they have rejected God. Forthosewho refuse to believe in the
Creator, evolution becomes their only escape. They generally make
no pretense of believing it based on anything other than their dis¬
belief in God. Henry Fairfield Osborn, one of the most famous evo¬
lutionists of the early twentieth century, suggested: "Intruth, from
the earliest stages of G reek thought man has been eager to discover
some natural cause of evolution, and to abandon the idea of super¬
natural intervention in the order of nature” (1918, p. ix). H enry M or¬
ris has noted: "Evolution is the natural way to explain the origin of
things for those who do not know and acknowledge the true G od
of creation. In fact, some kind of evolution is absolutely necessary
for those who would reject God" (1966, p. 98).

Sir Arthur Keith of Great Britain wrote: "Evolution is unproved
and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is spe¬
cial creation, and that is unthinkable" (as quoted in Criswell, 1972,
p. 73). Professor D .M .S. Watson, who held the position of the Chair
of Evolution at the University of London for over twenty years, ech¬
oed the same sentiments when he stated that "evolution itself is ac¬
cepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or
can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because
the only alternative, special creation, is incredible" (1929,123:233).
Almost seventy years later, evolutionist Richard Lewontin wrote:

0 ur willingness to accept scientific claims against common
sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle be¬
tween science and the supernatural. We take the side of sci¬
ence in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,
in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises
of health and life, in spiteofthetoleranceofthe scientific
community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we
have a prior commitment, a commitmentto naturalism. It is
not that the methods and institutions of science somehow
compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenom¬
enal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a

Origins and
Atheistic Evolution

priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus
of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material
explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how
mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is ab¬
solute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The em¬
inent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who
could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to
an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regu¬
larities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may hap¬
pen (1997, p. 31, emp. in orig.).

These kinds of statements leave little to the imagination, and make
it clear that those who make them believe in evolution not because
of the evidence, but instead because they have made up their minds,
a priori, that they are not going to believe in God.

In his text, Man's Origin: Man's Destiny, the late, eminent U nited
Nations scientist, A.E. Wilder-Smith, observed: "Darwinism and Neo-
Darwinism, rightly or wrongly, have been used everywhere in the
East and West, in the hands of the atheists and agnostics, as the main
weapon against the biblical doctrine of origins” (1975, p. 31). For
the person who stubbornly refuses to believe in God, belief in evo¬
lution becomes automatic. Similarly, opposition to God, the Bible,
and the system of origins the Bible describes, becomes just as auto¬
matic. Whenever a person rids himself of God, he simultaneously
(even if unwittingly) embraces evolution. By his disbelief, he has elim¬
inated creation as an option regarding his origin.

Reason #5

Another reason people offer for their belief in evolution has to
do with the fact that there is so much evil, pain, and suffering in the
world. No rational, well-informed person can deny the widespread
and unmistakable occurrence of "bad" things that happen, often en¬
gulfing those who seem undeserving of such tragic events. To some,
no explanation from religionists—regardless of how elaborately stat¬
ed or elegantly defended that explanation may be—ever will provide
an adequate answer to the conundrum of how an omnipotent, om¬
niscient, omnibenevolent G od can allow atrocities to fill H is specially
created world (see Thompson, 2000b, pp. 95-105).

Origins and
Atheistic Evolution

Evolution, on the other hand, provides what appears to be a per¬
fectly logical explanation for such a scenario. According to evolu¬
tionary dogma, throughout the history of the world various species
(including man) have been engaged in a struggle for survival and ad¬
vancement. Charles Darwin (borrowing a phrase from his friend,
English philosopher H erbert Spencer) referred to it as "survival of
the fittest." The evolutionist—because of the nature of his theory—
is forced to view the U niverse and everything within it as the end
result of numerous purposeless accidents. AII living things, includ¬
ing man, exist on the Earth not because of any G rand P Ian, but be¬
cause of fortuitous occurrences that resulted from chance happen¬
ings in nature. And, to survive—and thrive—in such a world may seem
to justify a "might makes right/strong subjugates the weak/to the
victor go the spoils" attitude. "It's a jungle out there"—and in the jun¬
gle it is the law of tooth and claw that prevails.

Since man is viewed as little more than a naked ape, why should
he somehow be exempt from the perils that continually befall other
species of animals? These animals live their entire lives with one eye
looking over their shoulder, as it were, because they exist in a dog-
eat-dog world with no set moral standard. M an, according to evo¬
lutionary theory, is no different. H is claim to fame lies in the fact
that (so far) he occupies the last rung of the evolutionary ladder.

But nature confers on him no special rights, privileges, or pro¬
tection. In a world where evolution is considered as true, and "sur¬
vival of the fittest" is touted as nature's way of weeding out the weak,
it should be no surprise that evil, pain, and suffering exist. In fact,
from the evolutionary vantage point, whenever competition occurs
for such things as food supplies, adequate shelter, reproductive ad¬
vantages, etc., humanity has to learn to cope with evil, pain, and
suffering. Granted, at first this may sound harsh, but from the evo¬
lutionists' perspective it is consistent, and offers an attempted ex¬
planation for the undeniable existence of "bad" things in our world.
U nfortunately, all too often the answers offered by religionists for

Origins and
Atheistic Evolution

the problem of evil, pain, and suffering have fallen short of the mark,
and as a result people have accepted evolution as providing a le¬
gitimate explanation for a very real problem in their lives.

Reason #6

As unpleasant as it is to have to admit it, some people believe in
evolution because they have heard about, witnessed, or experienced
firsthand the mistakes of religionists through the ages. Whether it
is the offering of young virgins to an imaginary deity, the burning of
alleged witches at the stake, or the adultery of a highly visible tele¬
vangelist, the truth of the matter is that on occasion believers in God
have set a very poor example—one that sensitive, thinking people
naturally would have difficulty following.

T 0 some, the very history of religion makes it suspect from the
outset. Attempts to force people to accept a certain religion (as in
the Crusades), or misguided attempts to squelch open discussion of
important issues (as in the Catholic Church's censure of Galileo),
have left a bitter taste in the mouths of many. Add to that the hypoc¬
risy of, or word spoken in anger by, a person who wears the name
"Christian,” and the damage may be such that even in a lifetime it
cannot be repaired. The result is that those who have been offend¬
ed want nothing whatsoever to do with the G od of the B ibie, and
as they reject H im, they also reject H is account of the creation of
the world in which they live.

Reason #7

While it is undeniable that some reject creation because of in¬
appropriate conduct on the part of those who advocate it, like¬
wise it is true that some reject God, and creation, to excuse or le¬
gitimize their own inappropriate personal conduct. In other words,
they believe in evolution because it allows them to avoid any ob¬
jective moral standard of behavior. It keeps them "out of reach" of
any deity. It provides a subjective climate of situation ethics where
any and all behavior, no matter how absurd or perverse, is accept-

Origins and
Atheistic Evolution

able. It nourishes a "do your own thing" attitude that precludes rules
and regulations, in a vain attempt to circumvent the guilt that inevi¬
tably comes from doing wrong.

In the evolutionary scenario, humans are merely the last in a long
line of amoebas, crocodiles, and orangutans resulting from fortui¬
tous cosmic accidents. In such an arrangement, it is futile to speak
of "personal responsibility." There exists, in the grand scheme of
things, no reason why one "ought" or "ought not" to act a certain
way, or to do/ not do a certain thing. Aldous H uxley stated the mat¬
ter succinctly in his article, "Confessionsof a Professed Atheist":

I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; con¬
sequently, assumed it had none, and was able without any dif¬
ficulty to find reasons for this assumption.... The philosopher
who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclu¬
sively with a problem in pure metaphysics: he is also concerned
to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should
not do as he wants to do.... For myself, as no doubt for most
of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness
was essentially an instrumentof liberation. The liberation we
desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political
and economic system and liberation from a certain system of
morality. We objected to the morality because it in¬
terfered with our sexual freedom (1966, 3:19, emp. ad¬
ded).

If H uxley and his cohorts had abandoned belief in evolution and
accepted the existence of God, it would have "interfered with their
sexual freedom." Realizing that, they chose instead to abandon be¬
lief in G od. That left them with only one option—belief in evolution.
It was not something they did because of the weight of the evidence.
Rather, it was something they did because they desired to avoid per¬
sonal accountability to the C reator. Their actions belied their mo¬
tives. As Woods remarked: "Convince a man that he came from a
monkey, and he'll act like one!" (1976a, 118[33]:514).

Reason #8

Lastly, we may state that some people accept evolution because
they are convinced that it is the correct answer to the question of
origins. They have examined the evidence and, on the basis of their

Origins and
Atheistic Evolution

examination, have concluded that evolution is the only plausible ex¬
planation for the U niverse and all that it contains. These people gen¬
erally are both sincere and open-minded. They are not attempting
to rid themselves of the idea of G od. T hey do not feel the need to
be "intellectually correct.” They are not reacting to unkind treatment
at the hand of religionists. They are not searching for a way to jus¬
tify worldly behavior. They simply believe the evidence favors evo¬
lution, and thus have accepted it as the correct view of origins.

IS EVOLUTION A "FACT" OF SCIENCE?

W hen we talk about the origin of the U niverse and those things
in it, we cannot speak as eyewitnesses or firsthand observers. None
of us was present when the origin of the U niverse occurred. There¬
fore, any scientific discussion must be based on assumptions, hypoth¬
eses, and theories put in place after the fact.

An assumption is something taken for granted, and represents
a legitimate starting point for an investigation. A hypothesis is an
educated guess or tentative assumption. A theory is a plausible or
scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles to ex¬
plain phenomena.

It generally is alleged by the more spirited evolutionists that evo¬
lution has been proven, and therefore must be spoken of not as the¬
ory, but fact. As far back as 1944, evolutionist W.W. Howells wrote
in Mankind So Far that "there is also the mystery of how and why
evolution takes place at all.... Evolution is a fact, like digestion...”
(p. 5). On May 2,1966, Nobel laureate Hermann]. Muller circu¬
lated a manifesto that affirmed:

It has for many years been well established scientifically that
all known forms of life, including man, have come into being
by a lengthy process of evolution. There are no hypotheses,
alternative to the principle of evolution with its "tree of life,"
that any competent biologist of today takes seriously. M ore-
over, the principle is so important for an understanding of the
world we live in and of ourselves thatthe public in general,

Origins and
Atheistic Evolution

including students taking biology in high school, should be
made aware of it, and of the fact that it is firmly established
even as the rotundity of the earth is firmly established (1966,

p. 2).*

Affixing their names to D r, M uller's manifesto to signify their agree¬
ment were 17 7 of the world's most eminent evolutionary scientists.

In this day and age, most evolutionists no longer speak of the
"theory" of evolution, but refer instead to the "fact" of evolution,
The widely accepted Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, finan¬
ced by the N ational Science F oundation, organized the entire treat¬
ment of biological science around the "fact" of the evolutionary
framework of life history, A Imost all books on biology published by
secular publishers for at least the past two generations have been
written as though evolutionary presuppositions were fact instead
of theory. In introducing the papers in the three-volume work on
evolution stemming from the 1959 Darwinian Centennial Convo¬
cation in Chicago, SirJ ulian H uxley eulogized Darwin as follows:

Charles Darwin has rightly been described as the "Newton
of biology": he did more than any single individual before or
since to change man's attitude to the phenomena of life and
to provide a coherent scientific framework of ideas for biol¬
ogy, in place of an approach in large part compounded of hear¬
say, m^h, and superstition. H e rendered evolution inescap¬
able as a fact, comprehensible as a process, all-embracing
as a concept (1960b, pp. 1-2).

H uxley maintained that "after Darwin it was no longer necessary
to deduce the existence of divine purpose for the facts of biological
adaptation" (1946, p. 87), Compare also H uxley's categorical state¬
ment at the Chicago convocation: "In the evolutionary pattern of
thought there is no longer need or room for the supernatural. The
earth was not created; it evolved. So did all the animals and plants

* Muller's manifesto was published originally in the February 1967 issue of Bulletin
of the Atomic Scientists. In his book, Forty-Two Years on the Firing Line,] ames
D. Bales gives the entire text of the manifesto (n.d., pp. 71-72) and a listing of the
177 scientists who signed it (pp. 73-77).

Origins and
Atheistic Evolution

that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind, and soul as well
as brain and body. So did religion” (1960c, pp. 252-253). J acques
Bar 2 un, in his book, Darwin, Marx, Wagner, raised this question:

Why was evolution more precious than scientific suspense
of judgment? Why do scientists to this day speak with con¬
siderable warmth of "the fact of evolution," as if it were in the
same category as the fact of combustion, which "may be ob¬
served by anyone who will take the necessary trouble"? (1958,
p. 65).

Barzun went on to point out why evolution is accepted as a fact,
by stating that it gave scientists complete freedom over "everything
in heaven and earth without restriction.” H e also observed that it put
everything under one cause (1958, p. 65).

The codiscoverer of the DNA molecule, j ames Watson, is on rec¬
ord as stating: "Today the theory of evolution is an accepted fact
for everyone but a fundamentalist minority” (1987, p. 2). j oining
Dr. Watson in that assessment is H arvard paleontologist, Stephen
j. Gould, one of the evolutionary establishment's fieriest apolo¬
gists, and an indefatigable crusader on behalf of organic evolution.
H e is a cogent writer, a gifted speaker, and a tireless worker for "the
cause.” H e also is one of science's most prolific and best-read au¬
thors (along with such late colleagues as C arl Sagan and Isaac Asi¬
mov), and is highly regarded in many scientific circles (the j anuary
1983 issue of Discover magazine voted him "Scientist of the Y ear”).
T hrough the years, D r. G ould's articles have appeared not only in
refereed scientific journals (e.g.. Nature, New Scientist, Science,
et al.), but in popular science magazines as well (Discover, Omni,
Science Digest, etal.). Therefore, when Dr. Gould speaks, many
people listen. To quote him directly: "When we come to popular
writing about evolution, I suppose that my own essays are as well
read as any” (1987, 8[1]:65). And therein lies the problem.

In the j anuary 1987 issue of Discover, Dr. Gould authored a
lengthy article titled, "Darwinism Defined: The Difference Between
Fact and Theory.” In this particular article, Gould expressed his ex-

Origins and
Atheistic Evolution

treme agitation at the inability of certain people (who should know
better, he said) to properly address evolution by its rightful desig¬
nation—as a fact, not a theory. The specific cause (this time)for his
discomfiture was an article in the September 30,1986 issue of the
N ew Y ork Times by Irving Kristol ("Room for Darwinism and the
Bible”). Dr. Gould acknowledged both his dismay and dissatisfac¬
tion at the apparent inability of people like M r. Kristol to distinguish
(to use his own words) "the central distinction between secure fact
and healthy debate about theory" (p. 64). Dr. Gould then explained
himself when he noted:

Facts are the world's data; theories are explanations pro¬
posed to interpretand coordinate facts. The fact of evolution
is as well established as anything in science (as secure as the
revolution of the earth about the sun), though absolute cer¬
tainty has no place in our lexicon. Theories, or statements
about the causes of documented evolutionary change, are now
in a period of intense debate—a good mark of science in its
healthiest state. Facts don't disappear while scientists de¬
bate theories (p. 64, parenthetical comment in orig.).

Later, Gould commented that "...evolution is also a fact of nature,
and so do we teach it as well, just as our geological colleagues de¬
scribe the structure of silicate minerals, and astronomers the ellip¬
tical orbits of the planets" (p. 65).

What could be clearer? Dr. Gould wants everyone to know that
evolution is a fact. H ow evolution occurred may be considered by
some to be merely a "theory," but that evolution has occurred is a
fact not open for further discussion. Gould even commented, "I
don't want to sound like a shrill dogmatist shouting 'rally 'round the
flag boys,' but biologists have reached a consensus...about the fact
of evolution” (p. 69). [In a guest editorial in the August 23,1999 is¬
sue of Time magazine, Dr. Gould boasted that "evolution is as well
documented as any phenomenon in science, as strongly as the earth's
revolution around the sun rather than vice versa. In this sense, we
can call evolution a'fact'" (1999,154[8]:59).]Dr. Gould is upset be¬
cause there are those who refuse to acknowledge evolution as a fact.

Origins and
Atheistic Evolution

According to him, "Evolution isafact, like apples falling out of trees”
(as quoted in Adler, 1980, p. 95). Gould's colleagues could not agree
more. IntheMarch 1987 issue of Natural History, Douglas]. Fu-
tuyma wrote in his review of Richard Dawkins' book. The Blind
Watchmaker:

In the last ten years or so, evolution has been under severe
attack, especially in the U nited States. It is important here to
recognize the distinction between the proposition that evo¬
lution has occurred and the theory that describes the causes
of evolutionary change. That evolution has occurred—that di¬
verse organisms have descended from common ancestors by
a history of modification and divergence—is accepted as fact
by virtually all biologists. "Fact" here means a proposition,
like the proposition that the earth revolves about the sun,
supported by so much evidence that to disbelieve it would
require disbelieving a large, successful edifice of scientific
achievement. The historical reality of evolution is doubted
chiefly by creationists, mostly on doctrinaire religious grounds
(96[3]:34).

Of course, such renowned scientists as Gould and Futuyma are not
even willing to concern themselves with creationists. In fact. Dr.
Gould commented:

I don't speak of the militant fundamentalists who label them¬
selves with the oxymoron "scientific creationists," and try to
sneak their Genesis literalism into high school classrooms un¬
der the guise of scientific dissent. I'm used to their rhetoric,
their dishonest mis- and half-quotations, their constant rep¬
etition of "useful" arguments that even they must recognize
as nonsense.... Our struggle with these ideologues is politi¬
cal, not intellectual. I speak instead of our allies among peo¬
ple committed to reason and honorable argument (1987, 8[1]:

64).

Thispoint should notbe overlooked. Gould suggests that his con¬
cern is about people who are "committed to reason and honor¬
able argument.” That, by his definition, would eliminate any and
all "creationists."

The purpose of the writings of Gould and Futuyma (and other
evolutionists) is to convince people to stop speaking of the "theory"

Origins and
Atheistic Evolution

of evolution, and to speak instead of the "fact" of evolution. But, in
order to accomplish this, they have to redefine the word "fact" as
it is used in science. I might note here that they are by no means
the first to attempt such a redefinition. Simpson and Beck tried the
exact same thing in their biology text. Life: An Introduction to Bi¬
ology, and ended their "redefining" section by claiming that theo¬
ries ultimately

...may bejustascertain—merit just as much confidence—as
what are popularly called "facts." Belief that the sun will rise
tomorrow is the confident application of a generalization.

The theory that life has evolved is founded on much more
evidence than supports the generalization that the sun rises
every day. In the vernacular, we are justified in calling both
"facts" (1965, p. 16).

A fact usually is defined as an actual occurrence or something that
has actual existence. With that standard-usage definition in mind,
consider the following.

Charles Darwin, in his Origin of Species, stated: "Long before
the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficul¬
ties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to
this day I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree
staggered" (1859, p. 158). Theodosius Dobzhansky, the late, emi¬
nent geneticist of the Rockefeller U niversity, stated in his book. The
Biological Basis of Human Freedom: "Evolution as a historical
fact was proved beyond reasonable doubt not later than in the clos¬
ing decades of the nineteenth century." Y ettwo pages later he stat¬
ed: "There is no doubt that both the historical and the causal as¬
pects of the evolutionary process are far from completely known.
...The causes which have brought about the development of the
human species can be only dimly discerned" (1956, pp. 6,8,9,
emp. added). Notice Dobzhansky's admission that both the histori¬
cal (what G ould refers to as the "fact" of evolution) and the causal
(what Gould refers to as the "theory" of evolution) are "far from com¬
pletely known.”

Origins and
Atheistic Evolution

In other words, on the one hand evolution is declared to be a
fact, yet on the other hand it is acknowledged that the process is
"far from completely known," with its causes "only dimly discerned,"
and the difficulties "staggering." Evolutionist W. LeGros Clark wrote:
"What was the ultimate origin of man?...Unfortunately, any answers
which can at present be given to these questions are based on in¬
direct evidence and thus are largely conjectural" (1955, p. 174,
emp, added). Kerkut, as an evolutionist, stated:

...I believe that the theory of Evolution as presented by or¬
thodox evolutionists is in many ways a satisfying explana¬
tion of some of the evidence. At the same time I think that
the attempt to explain all living forms in terms of evolution
from a unique source...is premature and not satisfactorily
supported by present-day evidence. ...the supporting
evidence remainsto be discovered.... Wecan, ifwelike, be¬
lieve that such an evolutionary system has taken place, but I
for one do not think that "it has been proven beyond all rea¬
sonable doubt." ...It is very depressing to find that many sub¬
jects are being encased in scientific dogmatism (1960, pp. vii,
viii, emp. added).

After listing and discussing the seven non-provable assumptions
upon which evolution is based. Dr. Kerkut then observed: "The
first point that I should like to make is that these seven assumptions
by their nature are not capable of experimental verification"
(p. 7, emp. added).

This stinging rebuke of the alleged factuality of evolution is not an
isolated instance. W.R. Thompson, while Director of the Common¬
wealth Institute of Biological Control in Canada, penned the "Intro¬
duction" to the 1956 edition of Darwin's Origin of Species, in which
he wrote:

Darwin did not show in the Origin that species had origi¬
nated by natural selection; he merely showed, on the basis
of certain facts and assumptions, how this might have hap¬
pened, and as he had convinced himself he was able to con¬
vince others.... On the other hand, it does appear to me that
Darwin in the Origin was not able to produce palaeontolog-

Origins and
Atheistic Evolution

ical evidence sufficient to prove his views but that the evi¬
dence he did produce was adverse to them; and I may
note that the position is not notably different today. The mod¬
ern D arwinian palaeontologists are obliged, just like their prede¬
cessors and like Darwin, to water down the facts with sub¬
sidiary hypotheses which, however plausible, are in the na¬
ture of things unverifiable (pp. xii, xix, emp. added).

Lest someone think that Dr. Thompson was speaking from igno¬
rance, I would like to introduce this quotation from Charles Darwin
when he wrote in a November 2 3,1859 letter to his brother Eras¬
mus, one day before the Origin of Species was published: "Con¬
cerning species, in fact the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfac¬
tory to me that if the facts won't fit, why so much the worse for the
facts, in my feeling" (see Francis Darwin, 1888, 2:29).

Evolutionists dogmatically assert that evolution is a fact, yet ad¬
mit that it: (a) is based upon non-provable assumptions that are
"not capable of experimental verification"; (b) bases its conclusions
upon answers that are "largely conjectural"; (c) is faced with evi¬
dence "adverse" to the available facts; (d) must continually be found
guilty of "watering down the facts"; and (e) has both historical and
causal aspects that "are far from completely known.” Little won¬
der Dr. Kerkut stated concerning the theory of evolution: "The evi¬
dence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consid¬
er it anything more than a working hypothesis” (1960, p. 157). Ro¬
bert M illikan, Nobel laureate in physics, opined: "The pathetic thing
is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which
no scientist can ever prove” (1925). What a far cry from the assess¬
ments of Gould and his colleagues in the modern evolutionary camp.

Someone might object, however, that the quotations I have em¬
ployed (from evolutionists such as Dobzhansky, Clark, and others)
to document the nonverifiability of evolution were written during
the 1950s and 1960s. M uch scientific research on evolution has oc¬
curred in the decades that followed, and thus it might be considered
unfair to rely on such "dated" critiques of a concept like evolution
that changes so rapidly and that has been studied so intently.

Origins and
Atheistic Evolution

My response to such an objection would be to point out that I
used the quotations from the 1950s and 1960s intentionally, in or¬
der to document that the situation over the past four decades has
not improved. Bythe 1970s, for example, little had changed. At the
height of his professional career, Pierre-Paul Grasse was considered
by many to be France's greatest living zoologist. In fact, Dobzhansky
wrote of him: "Now one can disagree with Grasse, but not ignore
him. H e is the most distinguished of French zoologists, the editor of
the 28 volumes of Traite de Zoologie, author of numerous original
investigations, and ex-president oftheAcademiedes Sciences. FI is
knowledge of the living world is encyclopedic” (1975, 29:376). In
1977, Grasse wrote in The Evolution of Living Organisms:

Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, consid¬
ered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon
which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. B iologists must be
encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapola¬
tions that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established
truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always,
since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposeiy
overiook reaiity and refuse to acknowiedge the inadequacies
and faisity of their beiiefs.

Their success among certain bioiogists, phiiosophers, and so-
cioiogists notwithstanding, the explanatory doctrines of
biological evolution do not stand up to an objective,
in-depth criticism. They prove to be either in confiict with
reaiity or eise incapabie of soiving the major probiems in-
voived (pp. 8,202, emp. added).

Three years later, in 1980, British physicist FI .5. Lipson pro¬
duced a thought-provoking piece in the M ay issue of Physics Bul¬
letin, a refereed science journal. In his article, "A Physicist Looks
at Evolution,” Dr. Lipson commented first on his interest in life's
origin and, second, on his non-association with creationists. FI e then
noted: "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion;
almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to
'bend' their observations to fit with it.” Dr. Lipson went on to ask
how well evolution has withstood the years of scientific testing, and
suggested that "to my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."

Origins and
Atheistic Evolution

After reviewing many of the problems (especially from thermo¬
dynamics) involved in producing something living from something
nonliving, he asked: "If living matter is not, then, caused by the in¬
terplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come in¬
to being?" After dismissing any sort of "directed evolution,” Lipson
concluded: "I think, however, that we must go further than this and
admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation." Like other
evolutionists who have voiced similar views. Dr. Lipson hardly is ec¬
static about his conclusion—a fact he made clear when he wrote: "I
know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but
we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental
evidence supports it" (31:138, emp. in orig.).

j ust a little over a year later, on November 5,1981, the late Colin
Patterson (who at the time was the senior paleontologist of the Brit¬
ish M useum of N atural H istory in London, the editor of the profes¬
sional journal published by the museum, and one of the world's fore¬
most fossil experts) delivered a public address to his evolutionist col¬
leagues at the American M useum of N atural H istory in N ew Y ork
City. In his speech. Dr. Patterson astonished those colleagues when
he stated that he had been "kicking around" non-evolutionary, or
"anti-evolutionary," ideas for about eighteen months. Ashe went
on to describe it:

0 ne morning I woke up and something had happened in the
night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff
for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about
it. That's quite a shock to iearn that one can be misied so
iong. Either there was something wrong with me, or there was
something wrong with evoiution theory (1981).

Dr. Patterson said he knew there was nothing wrong with him,
so he started asking various individuals and groups a simple question:
"Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing
that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field M u-
seum of Natural H istory, and the only answer I got was silence." H e
tried it on the Evolutionary M orphology Seminar at the U niversity

Origins and
Atheistic Evolution

of C hicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all he got
there "was silence for a long time and eventually one person said,
'I do know one thing—it ought not to be taught in high school.' ”
H e then remarked, "It does seem that the level of knowledge about
evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught
in high school, and that's all we know about it."

Dr. Patterson went on to say: "Then I woke up and realized that
all my life I had been duped into taking evolution as revealed truth
in someway." But more important, he termed evolution an "anti-
theory" that produced "anti-knowledge.” H e also suggested that
"the explanatory value of the hypothesis is nil," and that evolution
theory is "a void that has the function of knowledge but conveys
none." To use Patterson's wording, "I feel that the effects of hypoth¬
eses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely bor¬
ing, not just a lack of knowledge, I think it has been positively anti-
knowledge" (1981; cf. Bethell, 1985, 270:49-52,56-58,60-61).

D r. P atterson made it clear, as I wish to do here, that he had no
fondness for the creationist position. Y et he did refer to his stance
as "anti-evolutionary," which was quite a change for a man who had
authored several books (one of which was titled simply. Evolution)
in the field that he later acknowledged was capable of producing on¬
ly "anti-knowledge."

Colin Patterson was not the only one expressing such views, how¬
ever. Over the past two decades, distinguished British astronomer
Sir Fred H oyle has stressed the serious problems—once again, es¬
pecially from the fields of thermodynamics—with various theories
about the naturalistic origin of life on the Earth. The same year
that Dr. Patterson traveled to America to speak. Dr. Hoyle wrote:

I don't know how long it is going to be before astronomers
generally recognize that the combinatorial arrangement of
not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers on
which life depends could have been arrived at by natural pro¬
cesses here on the Earth. Astronomers will have a little diffi¬
culty in understanding this because they will be assured by bi-

Origins and
Atheistic Evolution

ologists that it is not so, the biologists having been assured
in their turn by others that it is not so. The "others" are a group
of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical mira¬
cles. They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, out¬
side of normal physics, there is a law which performs mira¬
cles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology). This cu¬
rious situation sits oddly on a profession that for long has been
dedicated to coming up with logical explanations of biblical
miracles.... It is quite otherwise, however, with the modern
miracle workers, who are always to be found living in the twi¬
light fringes of thermodynamics (1981a, 92:526, parenthet¬
ical comment in orig.).

In fact, Dr, Hoyle has described the evolutionary concept that dis¬
order gives rise to order in a rather picturesque manner.

The chance that higher forms have emerged in this way is com¬
parable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a
junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials
therein (1981b, 294:105).

And, in order to make his position perfectly clear, he provided his
readers with the following analogy:

At all events, anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with
the Rubik cube will concede the near-impossibility of a solu¬
tion being obtained by a blind person moving the cubic faces
at random. Now imagine 10^° blind persons each with a
scrambled Rubik cube, and try to conceive ofthe chance of
them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You
then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling at just
one ofthe many biopolymers on which life depends. The no¬
tion that not only biopolymers but the operating programme
of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial
organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high
order (1981a, 92:527, emp. in orig.).

H oyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe (who is a professor of as¬
tronomy and applied mathematics at the U niversity College, C ar-
diff, Wales) went even further. Using probability figures applied to
cosmic time (not just geologic time here on the Earth), their con¬
clusion was:

Origins and
Atheistic Evolution

0 nee we see, however, that the probability of life originating
at random is so utterly minuscule as to make the random con¬
cept absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable
properties of physics on which life depends, are in every re¬
spect deliberate.... It is therefore almost inevitable that our own
measure of intelligence must reflect in a valid way the high¬
er intelligences...even to the extreme idealized limitof God
(1981, pp. 141,144, emp. in orig.).

H oyle and Wickramasinghe suggested, however, that this "higher
intelligence" did not necessarily have to be, as far as they were con¬
cerned, what most people would call "God,” but simply a being with
an intelligence "to the limitof God." They, personally, opted for "di¬
rected panspermia," a view which suggests that life was "planted"
on the Earth via genetic material that originated from a "higher in¬
telligence" somewhere in the Universe. Butjust one year later, in
1982, Dr. Hoyle wrote:

A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a
superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with
chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth
speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from
the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclu¬
sion almost beyond question (20:16, emp. added).

Three years after that, in 1985, molecular biologist Michael Den¬
ton authored Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, in which he stated:

In this book, I have adopted the radical approach. By present¬
ing a systematic critique of the current Darwinian model, rang¬
ing from paleontology to molecular biology, I have tried to
show why I believe that the problems are too severe and too
intractable to offer any hope of resolution in terms of the or¬
thodox Darwinian framework, and that consequently the con¬
servative view is no longer tenable.

The intuitive feeling that pure chance could never have achieved
the degree of complexity and ingenuity so ubiquitous in na¬
ture has been a continuing source of scepticism ever since the
publication of the Origin; and throughout the past century
there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biol¬
ogists who have never been able to bring themselves to ac¬
cept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of bi¬
ologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment
is practically endless.

Origins and
Atheistic Evolution

The anti-evolutionary thesis argued in this book, the idea that
life might be fundamentally a discontinuous phenomenon,
runs counter to the whole thrust of modern biological thought.

...Put simply, no one has ever observed the interconnecting
continuum of functional forms linking all known past and pres¬
ent species of life. The concept of the continuity of nature has
existed in the mind of man, never in the facts of nature (pp.
16,327,353, emp. in orig.).

In 1987, two years after Denton's book was published, Swedish bi¬
ologist Soren Lovtrup wrote in an even stronger vein:

After this step-wise elimination, only one possibility remains:
theDarwinian theory of natural selection, whetheror
not coupled with Mendelism, is false. I have already shown
that the arguments advanced by the early champions were
not very compelling, and that there are now considerable
numbers of empirical facts which do not fit with the theory.

H ence, to all intents and purposes the theory has been
falsified, so why has it not been abandoned? I think the an¬
swer is that current evolutionists follow Darwin's example
—they refuse to acceptfalsifying evidence (p. 352, emp. added).

In his 1988 book. The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in
N atu re's C reati ve A bil ity to 0 rder the U ni verse, A ustralian physi¬
cist P aul D avies wrote: "T here is for me powerful evidence that there
is something going on behind it all. It seems as though somebody
has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the U niverse. T he im¬
pression of design is overwhel mi ng" (p. 203, emp. added). That
same year, George Greenstein wrote:

As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises
that some supernatural agency—or, rather. Agency—must be
involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we
have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Su¬
preme Being? Was itGod who stepped in and so providen¬
tially crafted the cosmos for our benefit? (1988, p. 27).

In 1992, Arno Penzias (who fourteen years earlier had shared the
1978 Nobel Prize in physics with RobertW. Wilson fortheir dis¬
covery of the so-called "background radiation" left over from the B ig
Bang) declared:

Origins and
Atheistic Evolution

Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was
created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance need¬
ed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life,
and one which has an underlying (one might say "supernat¬
ural") plan [p. 83, parenthetical comment in orig.].

In his 1994 book, The Physics of Immortality, Frank Tipler
(who coauthored with J ohn D. Barrow the massive 1986 volume.
The Anthropic Cosmological Principle) wrote:

When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years
ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams
imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting
to show that the central claims of J udeo-C hristian theology
are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deduc¬
tions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I
have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable
logic of my own special branch of physics (Preface).

One year later, nasa astronomer J ohn O'Keefe admitted:

We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted,
cherished group of creatures.... If the U niverse had not been
made with the most exacting precision we could never have
come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances
indicate the universe was created for man to live in (1995,

p. 200).

Then, in 1998, evolutionist M ichael Denton shocked everyone
with his new book. Nature's Destiny, when he admitted:

Because this book presents a teleological interpretation of
the cosmos which has obvious theological implications, it is
important to emphasize at the outset that the argument pre¬
sented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic
assumption of modern science—that the cosmos is a seam¬
less unity which can be comprehended ultimately in
its entirety by human reason and in which all phenom¬
ena, including life and evolution and the origin of man,
are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes....

Although this isobviously a book with many theological im¬
plications, my initial intention was not specifically to develop
an argument for design; however, as I researched more deep¬
ly into the topic and as the manuscript went through succes-

Origins and
Atheistic Evolution

sive drafts, it became increasingly clear that the laws of na¬
ture were fine-tuned on earth to a remarkable degree and that
the emerging picture provided powerful and self-evident sup¬
port for the traditional anthropocentric teleological view of
the cosmos. Thus, by the time the final draft was finished, the
book had become in effect an essay in natural theology in the
spirit and tradition of William Raley's Natural Theology (pp.
xvii-xviii,xi-xii, emp. in orig.).

Such quotations could be multiplied almost endlessly. Even a cursory
examination documents that there is much more that is "unknown"
than "known” in the evolutionary scenario.

First, evolution cannot be proven true unless nonliving can give
rise to living—that is to say, spontaneous generation must have oc¬
curred. Evolution, in its entirety, is based on this principle. But what
evidence is there that the concept of spontaneous generation is, in
fact, correct? What evidence is there that life arose from nonlife? In
their 1965 biology textbook. Life: An Introduction to Biology, evo¬
lutionists Simpson and Beck begrudgingly admitted that the spon¬
taneous generation of life "does not occur in any known case” (p.
261). Twelve years later, in his book. Until the Sun Dies, Robert
J astrow, the founder and former director of the Goddard Institute
for Space Studies at nasa, summarized the situation as follows:

According to this story, every tree, every blade of grass, and
every creature in the sea and on the land evolved out of one
parent strand of molecular matter drifting lazily in a warm
pool. What concrete evidence supports that remarkable the¬
ory of the origin of life? There is none (1977, p. 60).

Fouryears after that, in 1981, renowned British astrophysicist Sir
Fred Floyle complained in Nature magazine:

The likelihood ofthespontaneous formation of life from in¬
animate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts af¬
ter it.... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory
of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this plan¬
et nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not
random, they must therefore have been the product
of purposeful intelligence (1981b, 294:148, emp. added).

Origins and
Atheistic Evolution

A decade later, in 1991, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe published
in New Scientist an article with a catchy title ("Where Microbes
Boldly Went") but a dismal message—dismal, that is, for evolution¬
ists who are forced by their theory to believe in the concept of bio¬
chemical evolution, which allegedly produced the first life on Earth
by chance processes.

P recious little in the way of biochemical evolution could have
happened on the Earth. It is easy to show thatthe two thou¬
sand or so enzymes that span the whole of life could not have
evolved on the Earth. If one counts the number of trial assem¬
blies of amino acids that are needed to give rise to the en¬
zymes, the probability oftheir discovery by random shufflings
turns out to be less than 1 in (91:415).

Those "40,000 noughts" with which Dr. Hoyle was struggling
in 1981 still were a thorn in his side ten years later. And the situa¬
tion has not improved in the years since. 0 ne of the "scientific heavy¬
weights" in origin-of-life studies from an evolutionary viewpoint is
Leslie 0 rgel, who has spent most of his professional career attempt¬
ing to uncover the secrets of how life began on this planet. In the Oc¬
tober 1994 issue of Scientific American, Dr. Orgel authored an ar¬
ticle titled "The Origin of Life on Earth" in which he admitted:

It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids,
both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously
in the same place at the same time. Y et it also seems impos¬
sible to have one withoutthe other. And so, at first glance,
one might have to conclude that life could never, in
fact, have originated by chemical means....

We proposed that RNA might well have come first and estab¬
lished what is now called the rna world.... This scenario could
have occurred, we noted, if prebiotic rna had two prop¬
erties not evident today: a capacity to replicate without
the help of proteins and an ability to catalyze every step of
protein synthesis....

The precise events giving rise to the rna world remain un¬
clear. As we have seen, investigators have proposed many
hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmen-

Origins and
Atheistic Evolution

taryat beslThefull detailsof how the rna world, and
life, emerged may not be revealed in the near future
(271:78,83, emp. added).

It is not enough, of course, "just" to establish the possibility of
spontaneous generation/ biochemical evolution, Evolutionists also
must explain the origin of the dazzlingly complex DNA/ rna genetic
code that is the basis of every living organism, B ut, just as their fan-
ciful-but-failed scenarios for the explanation of the naturalistic ori¬
gin of life have left them lacking any substantive answers, so their the¬
ories regarding the origin of the genetic code have failed just as
miserably. 0 ne evolutionist, J ohn M addox, confessed as much in
a curiously titled but revealing article, "The Genesis Code byNum-
bers," in Nature.

It was already clear that the genetic code is not merely an ab¬
straction but the embodiment of life's mechanisms: the con¬
secutive triplets of nucleotides in DNA (called codons)are in¬
herited but they also guide the construction of proteins.

So it is disappointing that the origin of the genetic code
is still as obscure as the origin of life itself (1994, 367:

111, emp. added).

Second, not only is the inability of how to get life started a seri¬
ous stumbling block for evolutionists, but now the where of this sup¬
posed happening has been called into question as well. H oyle and
Wickramasinghe have argued that life fell to Earth from space af¬
ter having evolved from the warm, wet nucleus of a comet (see G rib-
bin, 1981,89[3]:14; Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1981). Sir Francis
Crick, codiscoverer of the dna molecule, has suggested that life ac¬
tually was sent here from other planets (1981). Meanwhile, back on
Earth, Sidney Fox and colleagues have proposed that life began on
the side of a primitive volcano on our primeval planet when a num¬
ber of dry amino acids "somehow" formed there at exactly the right
temperature, for exactly the right length of time, to form exactly the
right molecules necessary for living systems (1977). Evolutionists are
fond of saying (remember Gould?)thatthere is no controversy over
the fact of evolution; it is only the "how" about which they dis¬
agree. Not true. They cannot even agree on the "where.”

Origins and
Atheistic Evolution

Of course, some evolutionists will attempt to argue that such
matters are not properly discussed as a part of the evolutionary
process, and that evolution per se only applies to biological change.
Dobzhansky, however, settled that issue when he stated:

Evolution comprises all the stages of development of the
universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural devel¬
opments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to bi¬
ology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of in¬
organic matter, and man is a product of the evolution of life
(1967, 55:409).

Third, in hisj anuaryl987 Discover article. Dr. Gould, discus¬
sed some of the "data” that establish evolution as a "fact" (his state¬
ment was that "facts are the world's data"). An examination of these
data disproves the very thing that Gould was attempting to prove
—the "factuality" of evolution. He commented:

We have direct evidence of small-scale changes in control¬
led laboratory experiments of the past hundred years (on
bacteria, on almost every measurable property of the fruit
fly Drosophila), or observed in nature (color changes in moth
wings, development of metal tolerance in plants growing near
industrial waste heaps) or produced during a few thousand
years of human breeding and agriculture (8[1]:65, parenthet¬
ical items in orig.).

Dr. Gould thus wants us to believe that such changes prove evo¬
lution to be a fact. Yet notice what the professor conspicuously
omitted. H e failed to tell the reader what he stated publicly during
a speech at Hobart College, February 14,1980, when he said:

A mutation doesn't produce major new raw material. Y ou
don't make new species by mutating the species.... That's a
common idea people have; that evolution is due to random
mutations. A mutation is not the cause of evolutionary change
(as quoted in Sunderland, 1984, p. 106, emp. in orig.).

On the one hand, Gould wants us to believe that bacteria and
fruit flies have experienced "small-scale changes" via genetic mu¬
tations and thus serve as excellent examples of the "fact" of evolu¬
tion. B ut on the other hand, he tells us that mutations ("small-scale
changes") don't cause evolution. Which is it?

Origins and
Atheistic Evolution

On March 4,1982, Colin Patterson participated in a radio in¬
terview for the British Broadcasting Corporation, In that interview,
he admitted: "No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms
of natural selection, N o one has ever gotten near it and most of
the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question: how
a species originates" (1982), If evolution does not occur by mutation,
and it does not occur by natural selection, how, then, could evolu¬
tion be considered a "fact"? The only two known mechanisms have
been admitted—even by evolutionists—to be completely impotent in
this regard, Keith Thompson, professor of biology and dean of the
graduate school at Y ale U niversity, admitted as much when he wrote
in the American Scientist:

Twenty years ago Mayr, in hisAnimal Species and Evolu¬
tion seemed to have shown that if evolution is a jigsaw puz¬
zle, then at least all the edge pieces were in place, B ut today
we are less confident and the whole subject is in the most ex¬
citing ferment. Evolution is both troubled from without by the
nagging insistence of antiscientists [his term for creationists
—BTjand nagged from within by the troubling complexities
of genetic and developmental mechanisms and new ques¬
tions about the central mystery—speciation itself (1982, p,

529),

Further, notice that in his article Gould made the same mistake
that Darwin made 128 years earlier—extrapolating far beyond the
available evidence, Darwin looked at finches' beaks, and from small
changes he extrapolated to state that evolution from one group to
another had occurred, G ould looked at changes in fruit flies or bac¬
teria and did exactly the same thing, all the while failing to tell the
reader that the bacteria never changed into anything else, and the
fruit flies always remained fruit flies. If the "data" are the "facts," and
if the "data” actually disprove evolution, how is it then that evo¬
lution can be called, in any sense of the word, a "fact"?

The standard-usage dictionary definition of a fact is something
that is "an actual occurrence,” something that has "actual existence,”
Can any process be called "an actual occurrence” when the knowl-

Origins and
Atheistic Evolution

edge of how, when, where, what, and why is missing? Were some¬
one to suggest that a certain skyscraper had merely "happened,”
but that the how, when, where, what, and why were complete un¬
knowns, would you be likely to call it a fact, or an "unproven asser¬
tion”? T 0 ask is to answer. Gould, Futuyma, Simpson, and other
evolutionists may ask us to believe that their unproven hypothesis
somehow has garnered to itself the status of a "fact," but if they do,
they will have to come up with something based on evidence to sub¬
stantiate their wishful thinking. M erely trying to alter, for their own
purposes, the definition of fact will not suffice. Pardon us for our in¬
credulity, but when the best they can offer is a completely insuffi¬
cient explanation for life's origin in the first place, an equally insuffi¬
cient mechanism for the evolution of that life once it "somehow"
got started via naturalistic processes, and a fossil record full of "miss¬
ing links" to document its supposed course through time, we will con¬
tinue to relegate their "fact" to the status of a theory (or better yet,
a hypothesis). Adulterating the definition of the word fact is a poor
attempt by G ould (and others) to lend credence to a theory that lacks
any factual merit whatsoever.

Theodore N. Tahmisian, a nuclear physicist with the Atomic
Energy Commission, once stated:

Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of
life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be
the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have
one iota of fact.... It is a tangled mishmash of guessing games
and figure jaggling (as quoted in J ackson, 1974, p. 37).

J amesE. Lloyd, editor of the Florida Entomologist, condemned
evolution with faint praise (while simultaneously attempting to
prop up its alleged (actuality) when he wrote:

Evolution is, for all practical purposes, fact. Natural selection,
though it may be tautological and philosophically a poor the¬
ory in the various ways it is usually stated (e.g., "survival of
the fittest"), and perhaps not even capable of being falsified,
is nevertheless profound and axiomatic. It provides the most
useful insight for problem solving that biological science has,
and is the heart and soul of behavioral ecology (1982,65:1).

Origins and
Atheistic Evolution

Natural selection, says Lloyd, is a tautology (i.e., it reasons in cir¬
cles). Y et its major flaws notwithstanding, evolution is to be ac¬
cepted as a "fact" all the same. If this is the best evolutionists have
to offer as support for their claim of evolution's factuality, it should
be obvious to even the most casual observer that such a claim is
completely vacuous. Little wonder, then, that evolutionist M ichael
Denton wrote concerning Darwin:

H is general theory that all life on earth had originated and
evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous
mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly specu¬
lative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and
very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggres¬
sive advocates would have us believe (1985, p. 77).

7 /

Chapter 3

Origins and Creation

T he alternate and opposing theory to atheistic evolution is
creation (also known as special creation, the theory of cre¬
ation, or the creation model). Whereas evolution is based solely on
theconceptofnaturalistic processes, creation is based on the con¬
cept of supernatural processes. That there is indeed a dichotomy
here (and that these two models are, in fact, diametrically opposed
to each other) is granted by many on both sides of the issue. Some
years ago, Nobel laureate George Wald of Harvard University au¬
thored a lengthy, award-winning article for Scientific American
on the origin of life. In his article. Dr. Wald commented that, as an
evolutionist, he felt "the reasonable view was to believe in sponta¬
neous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary
act of supernatural creation. There is no third position" (1979,
p. 287, emp. added).

While creationists strongly disagree with D r. Wald's suggestion
regarding the feasibility of spontaneous generation, they just as
strongly agree with his assessment that "there is no third alterna¬
tive." We are here either as the result of natural forces (evolution),
or supernatural forces (creation). Morris and Parker observed:

Origins and Creation

The fact is, however, there are only two possible models
of origins, evolution or creation.... Either the space/mass/
time universe is eternai, or it is not. If it is, then evoiution is
the true expianation of its various components. If it is not,
then it must have been created by a Creator. These are the
only two possibilities—simply stated, either it happened by
accident (chance)...or it didn't (design).... There are only
these two possibilities. There may be many evolution sub¬
models...and various creation submodels..., but there can
be only two basic models—evolution or creation (1987, p.

190, emp. and parenthetical items in orig.).

0 ne or the other of these two models must be correct. That is to
say, all things either can, or cannot, be explained in terms of on¬
going, natural processes within a self-contained U niverse. If they can,
then evolution is true. If they cannot, then they must be explained,
at least in part, by extranatural processes that can account for a U ni¬
verse which itself was created. That is where creation becomes an
option.

CREATION DEFINED

The creation model that I am discussing in this book derives its
legitimacy from the Bible as the inspired Word of God. As a God-
breathed revelation (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21; 1 Corin¬
thians 2:12-13), the Bible speaks correctly and with authority on
each matter with which it deals. The creation model maintains that
the Universe is not self-contained. Rather, everything in the Uni¬
verse, and in fact, the U niverse itself, came into being through the
design, purpose, and deliberateactsof a supernatural Creator Who,
using processes that are not continuing as natural processes in the
present, created the U niverse, the Earth, and all life on the Earth,
including all basic types of plants and animals, as well as humans.
Creation maintains, in keeping with the accountfound in Genesis
1 (and referenced in other portions of the Bible), thatGod, as the
Creator, is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, having cre¬
ated the U niverse and all that is in it through divine fiat "by the word
of His power” (Hebrews 1:3).

Origins and Creation

Irenaeus ^.d. 130-200), one of the early church writers, expres¬
sed it like this: "H e H imself called into being the substance of H is
own creation, when previously it had no existence” (n.d., 2,X .iv).
Generally, this is referred to as creation ex nihilo, indicating that
God created the U niverse and its inhabitants from substancefs) not
previously in existence. Wilbert H. Rusch summarized the creation
model (as it applies to life) by stating that:

...wecouldthen holdthatGod made the plants and the an¬
imals according to H is own plan. This would seem to have
involved the creation of certain basic kinds of plants and an¬
imals, each with the ability to vary within a circle of the kind
to a greater or lesser degree. H owever, it would imply that
there are definite limits, beyond which plants and animals may
not vary (1991, p. 15, emp. in orig.).

Q uite obviously, the creation model differs drastically in a num¬
ber of ways from the evolution model. The evolution model posits
a U niverse that is able to explain its own existence (viz., it is self-con¬
tained); the creation model posits a U niverse that is not able to ex¬
plain its own existence (viz., it is not self-contained). The evolution
model posits no Creator; the creation model posits an omnipotent
Creator. The evolution model posits a Universe that is the end prod¬
uct of purely naturalistic forces; the creation model posits a U niverse
that is the end product of the C reator's intelligent and purposeful de¬
sign. The evolution model advocates the view that life originated by
accident; the creation model advocates the view that life was spe¬
cially created. Other important disparities between the two models
could be listed, but these will become evident throughout the remain¬
der of this book.

IS CREATION POPULAR?

A thousand times over the death knell of creation has been sound¬
ed, the funeral procession formed, the inscription cut on the tomb¬
stone, and the committal read. B ut somehow the corpse never stays
put. Concerning the premature funeral of creation, Morris has pen¬
ned these words:

Origins and Creation

The bells had tolled for any scientific belief In special creation.

The Scopes trial (1925) had ended In a nominal victory for
the fundamentalists, with the teacher Scopes convicted of
teaching evolution In the high school, contrary to T ennessee
law. In the press, however, ClarenceDarrow and his evolution¬
ist colleagues had resoundingly defeated William J ennings
Bryan and the creationists. Evolution henceforth was almost
universally accepted as an established fact of modern science,
and special creation relegated to the limbo of curious beliefs
of a former age....

But If creationism once was dead. It has recently risen from
the dead! Today there are hundreds of outspoken scientists
advocating a return to creation and abandonment of evolu¬
tion, and their numbers are Increasing. The evolutionary "es¬
tablishment" Is becoming alarmed, as multitudes of disillu¬
sioned youth are recoiling from the precipice of animalistic
amoralism and survival-of-the-fittest philosophy to which two
generations of evolutionary Indoctrination had led them (1974b,
pp. 9,13).

Since the publication in 1961 of The Genesis Flood byj ohn C.
Whitcomb and H enry M. M orris, belief in creation has increased in
popularity in a drastic fashion. The formation in 1963 of the Cre¬
ation Research Society did much to heighten that popularity, as did
the establishment in 1970 of the California-based Institute for Cre¬
ation Research. No longer are creationists considered to be on the
"peripheral fringe" and thus not much of a threatto the evolution¬
ary establishment. C reation is enjoying a groundswell of support in
both the popular and the scientific communities. There are scores
of creationist organizations—local, regional, national, and even in¬
ternational. And the interest is growing daily.

In the past, evolutionists often swayed audiences with bombast,
accusations, and insinuations. But no longer. Basil Overton, author
of the book. Evolution Or Creation?, offered this assessment:

Evolutionists are dogmatic in what they offer as an alterna¬
tive to believing the B ibie account of creation. T hey ask us not
to believe the Bible and then dogmatically ask us to believe
their theories instead. Dr. H.H. Newman says that the doc-

Origins and Creation

trine of evolution has no rival except what he calls "the out¬
worn and completely refuted" story of creation. He says the
story of creation is no longer believed by any except the ig¬
norant, the dogmatic, and the prejudiced. (See: Outlines of
General Zoology, by H .H. Newman, page 407.)

It is unfortunate that such men as Dr. H .H. Newman make
such rash statements, because such a view as he has expres¬
sed classifies many of the world's greatest minds as being ig¬
norant, dogmatic, and prejudiced. Dr. Newman so classifies
such great scientists and thinkers as: D r. A. C ressy M orrison;

Dr. H eribert Nilsson of the Swedish Botanical Institute: Dr.
j ohn Klotz, an American Man of Science, and author of a
classic entitled: Genes, Genesis, and Evolution; Dr. H enry
Morris, and Dr. j ohn Whitcomb, authors of the celebrated
book. The Genesis Flood; Dr. Frank Lewis Marsh of Andrews
University, and a hostof others (1973, p. 15, parenthetical
comment in orig.).

There has been an interesting turn of events over the past years.

In spite of the overwhelming monopoly that evolutionists have
developed over educational and communications media, how¬
ever, there does exist a tremendous reservoir of intelligent anti¬
evolutionary C hristian conviction in this and other countries.

A nd if well-written scholarly literature of this nature could some¬
how be channeled to the great body of educated "men of good
will," who are inclined to believe in evolution simply because
of a brainwashing to which they have been subjected ever
since entering the public schools but whose minds are not
closed to new considerations, then there is no doubt that a
much greater body of anti-evolutionary sentiment could be
quickly developed (Morris, 1963, p. 28).

Actually, the very thing that Dr. Morris predicted in 1963 has hap¬
pened. There is, in fact, a "body of anti-evolutionary sentiment" that
has developed, and correspondingly a body of "pro-creation sen¬
timent." In 1975,] amesCoppedge made the following statement
in his book. Evolution: Possible or Impossible?:

The growing evidence against evolution will eventually force
American evolutionists to face the fact that the position is un¬
tenable. Some will then openmindedly explore the idea of
creation, while others will doubtless persist in materialism at
any cost (p. 180).

Origins and Creation

As it turns out, the predictions made by both M orris and Coppedge
contained a kernel of truth, C ertainly, it is not the case that evolu¬
tionists are abandoning their theory in droves. H owever, two ob¬
servations may be made about recent happenings. First, it is from
among the evolutionists themselves that have come some of the
most stinging rebukes of their theory. Second, among the general
populace there is a marked increase in support for creation. As evi¬
dence—in addition to the quotations from evolutionists like G rasse,
Denton, and Lovtrup introduced in the previous chapter—I offer
the following.

In 1971, H arvard-trained lawyer, Norman Macbeth, wrote a bit¬
ing rebuttal of evolution titled Darwin Retried. Somewhat later,
in a published interview about the book and its contents, he ob¬
served that evolutionists still were "not revealing all the dirt under
the rug in their approach to the public. There is a feeling that they
ought to keep back the worst so that their public reputation would
not suffer and the C reationists wouldn't get any ammunition" (1982,
2:22). It is too late, however, because the evolutionists' public rep¬
utation has suffered, and the creationists have garnered to them¬
selves additional ammunition, as is evident from the following.

In a center-column, front-page article in thej une 15,1979 is¬
sue of the Wall Street] ournal, there appeared an article by one
ofthej ournal's staff writers commenting on how creationists, when
engaging in debates with evolutionists, "tend to win" the debates,
and that creationism was "making progress." In 1979, Gallup poll¬
sters conducted a random survey, inquiring about belief in creation
versus evolution. The poll had been commissioned by Christianity
Today magazine, and was reported in its December 21,1979 is¬
sue. This poll found that 5l%of Americans believe in the special cre¬
ation of a literal Adam and Eve as the starting place of human life.
In the March 1980 issue of the American School Board] ournal
(p. 52), itwas reported that 67% of its readers (most of whom were
school board members and school administrators) favored the teach¬
ing of the scientific evidence for creation in public schools. Glamour

Origins and Creation

magazine conducted a poll of its own and reported the results in
its August 1982 issue (p. 28). The magazine found that 74%of its
readers favored teaching the scientific evidence for creation in pub¬
lic schools. 0 ne of the most authoritative polls was conducted in 0 c-
toberl981 by the Associated Press/ nbc News polling organization.
The results were as follows:

"Only evolution should be taught".8%

"Only creation should betaught".10%

"Both creation and evolution should betaught" . . . 76%
"Notsure which should betaught".6%

Thus, nationwide no less than 86%of the people in the United States
believe that creation should be taught in public schools. In A ugust
1982, another Gallup poll was conducted, and found that 44%of
those interviewed believed not only in creation, but in a recent cre¬
ation of less than 10,000 years ago. Only 9%of the people polled
believed in atheistic evolution.

On November 28,1991 results were released from yet anoth¬
er Gallup poll regarding the biblical account of origins. The results
may be summarized as follows. On origins: 47% believed God cre¬
ated man within the last 10,000 years (up 3%from the 1982 poll
mentioned above); 40% believed man evolved over millions of years,
but that God guided the process; 9% believed man evolved over mil¬
lions of years without G od; 4% were "other/ don't know.” 0 n the
Bible: 32%believed the Bible to be the inspired Word of God, and
that it should be taken literally; 49% believed the B ibie to be the in¬
spired Word of God, but that it should not always betaken literally;
16%believed theBibleto be entirely the product of men; 3%were
"other/don't know” (see Major, 1991,11:48; j ohn Morris, 1992,
p. d). Two years later, a Gallup poll carried out in 1993 produced
almost the same results. Of those responding, 47%stated that they
believed in a recent creation of man; ll%expressed their belief in
a strictly naturalistic form ofevolution (see Newport, 1993, p.A-22).
Fouryears after that poll, a 1997 Gallup survey found that44%of
Americans (including 31% who were college graduates) subscribed

Origins and Creation

to a fairly literal reading of the Genesis account of creation, while
another 39%(53%of whom were college graduates) believed God
played at least some part in creating the U niverse. 0 niy 10% (17%
college graduates) embraced a purely naturalistic, evolutionary view
(see Bishop, 1998, pp. 39-48; Sheler, 1999, pp. 48-49). The results
of a Gallup poll released in August 1999 were practically identical:
47% stated that they believed in a recent creation of man; 9% ex¬
pressed belief in strictly naturalistic evolution (see Moore, 1999).

In its March 11, 2000 issue, the New York Times ran a story
titled "Survey Finds Support is Strong for Teaching 2 0 rigin The¬
ories,” which reported on a poll commissioned by the liberal civil
rights group. People for the American Way, and conducted by the
prestigious polling/public research firm, dyg, of Danbury, Con¬
necticut. According to the report, 79%of the people polled felt that
the scientific evidence for creation should be included in the curric¬
ulum of public schools (see Glanz, 2000, p. A-1).

The amazing thing about all of this, of course, is that these re¬
sults are being achieved after more than a century of evolutionary
indoctrination. As a result, anti-creationist hysteria is in full swing.
Resolutions against creation are being passed, pro-evolution pam¬
phlets are being distributed, "committees of correspondence" are
being formed, debates with creationists are being avoided (so that
the creationists no longer "tend to win"), and anti-creationist books
are streaming from the presses at an unprecedented rate. For ex¬
ample, in 1977 theAmerican FI umanistAssociation fired a major
salvo by publishing a M anifesto affirming evolution as "firmly es¬
tablished in the view of the modern scientific community" (see The
FI umanist, 1977, 37:4-5). Following that, Dorothy Nelkin, a profes¬
sor of sociology at Cornell U niversity, published the first of what be¬
came a series of anti-creationist books when she wrote Science
Textbook Controversiesand the Politics of Equal Time (1977).

Since then, a lengthy list of such books can be documented. As
samples, I might list such volumes as: (1) The Darwinian Revolution
by M ichael Ruse (1979); (2) Abusing Science: The Case Against

Origins and Creation

Creationism by Philip Kitcher(1982); (3) The Mon key Business
byNilesEldredge (1982); (4) Scientists Confront Creationism, ed¬
ited by Laurie Godfrey (1983); (5) Science on Trial: The Case for
Evolution by Douglas). Futuyma (1983); (6) Science and Cre¬
ationism, edited by Ashley Montagu (1984); (7) Creation and Evo¬
lution: Myth or Reality? by Norman D, Newell (1985) (8)The
Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins (1986); (9) Science and
Creation byRobertW. Hanson (1986); (lO)Cult Archaeology and
Creationism by Francis B. Harroldand Raymond A. Eve (1987);
(11) Anti-Evolution Bibliography by Tom Mclver (1988a); (12)
Evolution—The Great Debate by Vernon Blackmore and Andrew
Page (1989); (13) Evolution and the Myth of Creationism byTim
Berra (1990); (14) The Creationist Movement in M odern Amer¬
ica by Raymond A. Eve and Francis B, Harrold (1991); (15)The
Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism by Ron¬
ald L, Numbers (1992); (16)The Myth-Maker's Magic—Behind
the Illusion of "Creation Science" by Delos B, McKown; (17)Cre-
ationism's Upside-Down Pyramid: How Science Refutes Fun¬
damentalism by LeeTiffin (1994); (18) Science and Earth History:
The Evolution/Creation Controversy by Arthur N. Strahler (1999);
and (19)TheTriumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creation¬
ism [the sequel to his 1982 volume. The Monkey Business] by Niles
Eldredge (2000).

This list could be lengthened considerably, but I think the point
is clear, Creation no longer is being taken lightly, A "call to arms”
has been made by the evolutionary establishment, and is being an¬
swered by many in the evolutionary community, C reationism is en¬
joying renewed popularity. Were that not the case, evolutionists
would not be so busily engaged in meeting what they perceive as a
very real threat to the status quo that they have enjoyed for so long.

WHY DO PEOPLE BELIEVE IN CREATION?

Those who believe in creation do so for a number of reasons.
First, they believe in creation because they have seen the evidence

Origins and Creation

that proves God's existence. Creationists understand that where
there is a painting, there must by necessity be a painter. Where there
is a poem, there must by necessity be a poet. Where there is a law,
there must by necessity be a lawgiver. Where there is design, there
must by necessity be a designer. Because the U niverse is intricately
designed, creationists find it impossible to believe that it "just hap¬
pened." T 0 them, the only logical conclusion is that the U niverse
had a designer—the God of the Bible.

Second, it is true that Christians believe in creation because of
faith, B ut this is not "blind faith," for that phrase is not descriptive
of biblical faith (seeThompson, 1994,14:25-27,29-31). The Chris¬
tian's faith is based on evidence (H ebrews 11:1), not mere guess¬
work, Christianity is no "pie-in-the-sky-by-and-by" religion. While
Christians readily admit that, at times, they walk by faith and not
by sight (2 C orinthians 5:7), they also are quick to point out that G od
has not left H imself without witness of H imself in nature (Romans
1:18-20; Acts 14:17), which makes faith evidence-based and evi¬
dence-established. Since faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the
Word of God (Romans 10:17), wherever there is no evidence from
God, there will be no faith.

Third, those who believe in creation do so because they have ex¬
amined both the empirical and the prima facie evidence that is
available. And such evidence points to a Creator—not to a Universe
that is self-created or self-explained. Upon critical examination, cre¬
ationists have found the "proofs” of evolution not to be "proofs" at
all. N onliving matter does not give rise to life. The "missing links" are
still missing. Evolution has no adequate mechanism. Such solely hu¬
man traits as morals, values, and ethics remain unexplained by any
evolutionary process. A nd so on, 0 n the other hand, each of these
issues is answered quite adequately by creation,

IS CREATION A "FACT" OF SCIENCE?

The concepts of creation and evolution both share one funda¬
mental similarity—the idea that the U niverse and life are the prod¬
ucts of one or more unique events. Evolutionists speak of such things

Origins and Creation

as the Big Bang and the origin of living from nonliving. Neither of
these events, however, is occurring today. In a similar fashion, cre¬
ationists speak of the U niverse and life as the products of divine cre¬
ative acts, and of a worldwide F lood that helped shape the present
Earth. These events also are unique.

Science (in the sense that most people understand the word) nor¬
mally deals with empirical events and processes—things that can be
observed with the five senses. Furthermore, science usually concerns
itself with those things that are universal, dependable, timeless, and
repeatable. That is to say, a scientist in C hina can use the same meth¬
odology as a scientist in America and obtain the same results today,
tomorrow, next year, or at any time in the future.

It should be obvious to all concerned that neither evolution nor
creation falls into such a category. Certain of the basic concepts in¬
volved (the Big Bang, the creation of man, etc.)cannot be tested us¬
ing these criteria. Y et there are certain things about both creation
and evolution that can be tested. In order to distinguish the things
within each model that can be tested from those that cannot, some
authors have suggested that science itself be divided into two dis¬
tinct categories. For example, in their 1984 book. The Mystery of
Life'sOrigin, Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, and RogerOlsen
recommended separating operation science from origin science.
Others (e.g., Geisler and Anderson, 1987) have followed suit.

Operation science deals with regular, recurring events in nature
that require natural causes (eclipses, volcanoes, reproduction, etc.),
while origin science deals with singularities that may or may not re¬
quire a natural cause (the Big Bang, creation, etc.). The term "ori¬
gin science" may be new but, in fact, it works by the time-honored,
standard principles of causality and uniformity. The principle of
causality says that every material effect must have a prior, neces¬
sary, and adequate cause. The principle of uniformity (or anal¬
ogy) says that similar effects have similar causes. In other words, the
kinds of causes that we observe producing effects today can be count¬
ed on to have produced similar effects in the past. What we see as

Origins and Creation

an adequate cause in the present, we assume to have been an ad¬
equate cause in the past; what we see as an inadequate cause in the
present, we assume to have been an inadequate cause in the past.

None of us denies that creation occurred in the distant past as
the results of events that now are unable to be studied experimen¬
tally in the laboratory. In this sense, creation is no more a "fact” of
science than evolution. But the same limitations are inherent in evo¬
lutionary scenarios. Anyone familiar with the works of evolutionists
like Robert] astrow and Fred H oyle is aware of the fact that these
scientists, and others, have pointed out that the origin of the U ni-
verse, and of life itself, occurred in the distant past under conditions
not necessarily experimentally reproducible and therefore not able
to be studied in a strictly scientific manner. Paul Ehrlich and L.C.
Birch, both evolutionists, also have addressed these issues.

Ourtheory of evolution has become...one which cannot be
refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable ob¬
servation can be fitted into it. It is thus "outside empirical sci¬
ence" but not necessarily false. N o one can think of ways in
which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few
laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified
systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They
have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by
most of us as part of our training (1967, 214:349).

That would seem, to the unbiased observer, to put creation and
evolution on equal footing. Evolutionists likely will disagree, as Trev¬
or Major has observed:

Still, evolutionists may argue that creationists have done them¬
selves no service by making a separate science out of singu¬
larities. Defining a nonempirical science is one thing; pro¬
posing supernatural causes is quite another. For this reason,
they will always view creationism as unscientific. But the idea
that history consists of an unbroken stream of natural causes
and effects is merely a presumption on their part. Perhaps
they fear a new generation of doctoral students invoking God
when they cannot explain something in their research pro¬
jects. Y et this fear is unfounded. As stated earlier, most scien¬
tists of the past had no problem with divine intervention. In-

Origins and Creation

deed, one of the driving forces of early Western science was
the idea that the Universe, as God's creation, was open to ra¬
tional investigation. In doing good operation science, these
scientists would seek natural causes for regularly occurring
events. Many of them recognized, however, that unique events
may require a cause beyond nature. Only analogy with the
present can determine whether the cause is miraculous or nat¬
uralistic (1994a, 14:21, emp. in orig.).

It is not a justifiable criticism to say simply that "creation is based
on supernatural processes in the distant past” and therefore is not
scientific. The "supernatural" beginnings of creation are no less avail¬
able for scientific examination than are the "unique” (though allegedly
natural) beginnings of evolution.

Furthermore, whoever defined science as "naturalism"? The word
"science" derives from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge."
Scientists are supposed to be men and women who are on a life¬
long search for truth and knowledge, regardless of where that search
may lead. Science is based on an observation of the facts and is di¬
rected at finding patterns of order in the observed data. There is
nothing about true science that excludes the study of cre¬
ated objects and order!

T 0 assume that knowledge can be acquired solely on the basis
of naturalism, and that only those items that might have come about
"naturally” may be studied, is to beg the question entirely. It is at
least possible that creation could be the true explanation of origins,
and thus it is premature and bigoted for certain scientists to exclude
it from the domain of science by definition, all the while leaving the
theory of evolution within that domain.

Chapter 4

Voices of Compromise

W here would we be without revelation from God? Such a
revelation is both possible and necessary. It is possible
because God, being all-powerful, is able to do anything H e wishes
that is not contrary to His divine nature (J ob42:2; Matthew 19:
26). It is necessary due to the fact that otherwise man would have
no way to know fully and adequately the things it is imperative for
him to know. For example, it is essential to have a divine revelation
in order for man to know: (a) The character of God. While some¬
thing of God's essence and power can be gleaned vaguely from na¬
ture itself (as I shall show shortly), it takes the fullness of actual com¬
munication from God to reveal H is holiness, justice, mercy, grace,
love, and other attributes. (b)Theorigin of man. Wereitnotfor
divine revelation, man would have no way to know of his lofty ori¬
gin. The confusion of modern-day evolutionary theories is evidence
aplenty of this. (c)Theorigin of evil. Man needed to be educated
concerning the source of his sinful predicament. Else, how could he
know about the sinful state in which he finds himself? (d) M an's
purpose. D ivine revelation was necessary if man was to compre¬
hend his purpose while here on Earth, and especially the provisions
for his redemption. With no defined purpose, man surely would wan-

Voices of Compromise

der endlessly through the centuries, with neither goals nor objectives
at hand, (e) Man's destiny. In the absence of God's revelation,
none of us would know anything of the heaven to be gained, or the
hell to be shunned. The urgency of this knowledge is made all the
more real by the general despair of those who reject the concept
of supernatural revelation.

Revelation designates the unveiling of facts and truths by God
—things that man, on his own, could not have known previously. Rev¬
elation has reference to the communication of knowledge. Reve¬
lation discovers new truth to men (1 Corinthians 2:10); inspira¬
tion guides and controls the giving of truth (1 Corinthians 2:13),
ensuring that God gets written correctly what H e wants written. In¬
spiration extends to the whole of truth, although the subject matter
is of two kinds: revelation and known facts (or as we would call it, his¬
tory). The Bible speaks forthrightly about its inspiration (2 Timothy
3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21; 1 Corinthians2:13; etal.). Basically,
this claim amounts to the declaration that the Bible is God's will and
way in the world, a record and interpretation of God's activity, and
a guide for man in service to the Lord. The B ibie thus is regarded
(based on evidence) as a repository of absolute Truth that may be
studied faithfully, the result being that one knows God's will.

In discussing God's revelation, students of Scripture have spoken
of that revelation as being two-fold: (1) natural (or general) revela¬
tion; and (2)special (or supernatural) revelation. Natural revela¬
tion comes to man through nature. The first six verses of Psalm
19 declare that God has given a revelation of H imself in nature that
constantly is testifying to the existence of the C reator. The apostle
Paul, speaking through inspiration in Romans 1:20, clearly stated
thatGod's "invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has
been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they
are without excuse." Natural revelation is rooted in creation and in
the ordinary relationship of God to man. The Scriptures teach that
natural revelation is universal. At no time in all of history has God
left H imself without a witness of H imself in nature (Acts 14:17),

Voices of Compromise

The Scriptures likewise make it clear, however, that God has giv¬
en a second revelation—special revelation. This revelation is found
only in the B ibie. It has become inscripturated; it is of word and of
fact, and is historical in nature. God, in using this kind of revelation,
disclosed H imself in at least three different ways: (a) Theophanies
(i.e., veiled appearances of H imself). H e appeared in fire, clouds, and
smoke (Genesis 15:17; Exodus 3:2; 19:9,16ff.; 33:9). He appeared
in stormy winds (J ob 38:1; 40:6; Psalm 18:10-16). Theophany
reached its highest point in the incarnation in which J esus C hrist
became flesh and dwelt among us (Colossians 1:19; 2:9). (b) Di¬
rect communications. God spoke through an audible voice on oc¬
casion (Genesis 2:16; 3:8-19; 4:6-15; Exodus 19:9; 1 Samuel 3:4).
He communicated through visions (Isaiah 6:lff.; 21:6ff.; Ezekiel 1-
3; Daniel 1:17). H e also communicated through the H oly Spirit (Mark
13:11; Lukel2:12;J ohn 14:17; 15:26; Acts6:10). (c) Miracles.
God, through miracles, chose to reveal H is power and presence.
Such miracles emphasized great truths, and were intended as con¬
firmation of H is word, H is prophecy, and H is power.

The careful student of Scripture has long been aware of the two
types of revelation, and similarly has been aware that as great as
natural revelation is, in and of itself it is deficient. At this point in
time, nature has ceased to be a perspicuous revelation of God (at
least to some). It may have been so before sin occurred, but even if
it were, man now has been so blinded by sin that he cannot read the
divine script in nature. Natural revelation simply is not enough; it
never was intended to be. It does not afford man the reliable knowl¬
edge of G od, and the spiritual things man needs for his ultimate sal¬
vation. Therefore, it is inadequate as a total foundation for man's
faith. From nature, man never can infer the need for a personal
Savior. Thus, God gave special revelation. The two combined rep¬
resent God's message adequately communicated to man. When
viewed in their proper perspectives, God's two revelations form
important testimony to H is power and H is saving grace.

Voices of Compromise

THE DOUBLE REVELATION THEORY

U nfortunately, some today have abandoned any confidence in
what God's special revelation has to say regarding man's origin, in
deference to evolutionary speculations. Numerous others, not will¬
ing to forsake the totality of their faith, have sought an illegitimate
amalgamation between biblical and evolutionary views.

For example, advocates of what has come to be known as the
Double Revelation Theory maintain that natural revelation and
special revelation are fully authoritative in their respective realms.
Since these two revelations are given by the same self-consistent
God of Truth, they cannot, and will not, contradict each other. The
theologian, therefore, is viewed as the God-appointed interpreter
of Scripture, while the scientist is seen as the God-appointed in¬
terpreter of nature, each reading (through "special lenses") his own
"book of revelation."

According to proponents of this idea, whenever there is an ap¬
parent conflict between the conclusions of the scientist and the con¬
clusions of the theologian—especially with regard to such questions
as the origin of the U niverse, the solar system, plant life, animal
life, and man—it is the theologian who must rethink his interpre¬
tation of Scripture in such a way as to bring the B ibie into harmony
with the scientists' consensus. Since "the B ibIe is not a textbook on
science," and since these problems overlap the territory in which
science alone must give us detailed and authoritative answers, the
theologian is the one who should "correct" his views. It is held that
this is necessarily the case because if a grammatical/ historical in¬
terpretation of any biblical account should lead the B ibie student
to adopt conclusions that are contrary to the prevailing views of
trained scientists concerning the origin and nature of the material
U niverse, then that B ibie student would be guilty of making G od a
deceiver of mankind in these vitally important matters. B ut a G od
of Truth cannot lie (Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18). Therefore, so the
argument goes, the Bible account must be "interpreted" in such a
manner as to bring it into full agreement with the generally ac¬
cepted views of contemporary scientists.

Voices of Compromise

There is a variety of ways by which advocates of the Double
Revelation Theory hope to accomplish this highly unusual dichot¬
omy. If one is speaking of G enesis 1-11, for example, these chap¬
ters are not to be viewed as literal or historical. Instead, they must
be viewed as "mythical” or "allegorical." The Bible, so we are told,
is intended to provide answers to important "spiritual questions”
such as "Who?" or "Why?" Scientists, on the other hand, must
provide the answers to important questions such as "When?" and
"How?"

It is not difficult to document examples revealing the popular¬
ity of the Double Revelation Theory. In fact, J ohn Whitcomb de¬
voted an entire appendix in one of his books to listing proponents
of the Double Revelation Theory (1978, pp. 163-165), and currently
there are many more names that could be added to his list. For ex¬
ample, onj une 13,1986, Henry Morris (creationist and then-presi¬
dent of the Institute for C reation Research) and Lewis M ammel (the-
ist, but anti-creationist and researcher atAT&T Bell Research Lab¬
oratories) debated the subject of the age of the Earth. During the
closing moments of the debate, in response to a question from the
audience. Dr. M ammel stated, in speaking about Christians and cre¬
ationists, "I think they would be able to adjust their interpretation to
agree with what we see in the natural world. I think it's a mistake
to elevate doctrine above our reason and the evidence of our
senses" (see Mammel and Morris, 1986, emp. added).

There are others, of course, who agree with Dr. M ammel in this
approach. Davis A. Young, as a professor of geology at Calvin Col¬
lege, advocated similar views. In his book. Creation and the Flood,
he acknowledged that the literal-day interpretation of the G enesis
account of creation is "the obvious view,” and that the Bible teach¬
es a universal Flood. Nevertheless, he felt compelled to reject (and
did reject!) these teachings of Scripture because "geology” (i.e., ge¬
ology as interpreted through an evolutionary framework) has "dis¬
proved" them (1977, pp. 44,172). In his book, Christianity and
the Age of the Earth, Dr. Young stated:

Voices of Compromise

The Bible is indeed the infallible, inerrant Word of God. It is
absolutely true in matters of science and history as much as
in matters of salvation and religion. But nature is also from
God, and nature would lead us to believe that the Earth is ex¬
tremely old. Scientific investigation of the world God gave
us is an exciting enterprise that God would have us engage
in. We do not need the flight-from-reality science of creation¬
ism (1982, p. 163).

Y oung has made it clear that while he verbally professes a belief
in God's Word as infallible and inerrant, that Word will not be al¬
lowed to dictate to him the truth in certain areas.

Another religionist who has accepted the Double Revelation The¬
ory is Rattle P.T. Pun, professor of biology at Wheaton College,
who has written:

It is apparent that the most straightforward understanding of
the Genesis record, without regard to all the hermeneutical
considerations suggested by science, is that God created heav¬
en and earth in six solar days, that man was created in the sixth
day, that death and chaos entered the world after the Fall of
Adam and Eve, that all of the fossils were the result of the cat-
astrophic universal deluge which spared only N oah's family
and the animals therewith....

H owever, the Recent C reationist position has two serious
flaws. F irst, it has denied and belittled the vast amount of sci¬
entific evidence amassed to support the theory of natural se¬
lection and the antiquity of the earth. Secondly, much C re¬
ationist writing has "deistic" implications...the stipulation that
the varieties we see today in the biological world were pres¬
ent in the initial C reation implies that the C reator is no lon¬
ger involved in creation in a dynamic way (1987, 39:14).

Dr. Pun's accusation that creationists' teachings have "deistic" im¬
plications is both unwarranted and unfair. Creationists do not teach
or imply that all the varieties of plants and animals were present in
the initial creation, but only the basic "kinds"—which is exactly what
Genesis says no less than ten times in its first chapter. Furthermore,
the fact that God no longer iscreating (Genesis 2:l)does not
mean that H e somehow is inactive in the present world. J esus H im-

Voices of Compromise

self stated, in fact, that H is Father "worketh even until now" (| ohn
5:17), While God's work of creation is complete, H is work of re¬
demption continues. Creationists cannot be accused justifiably of
advocating deism in any form, [note: For an up-to-date discussion
and refutation of deism from a creationist point of view, see Thomp¬
son, 2000b, pp. 33-42.]The real reason that Dr. Pun rejects what
he admits is the "most straightforward understanding of the G en-
esis record" is that it conflicts with the "vast amount of scientific ev¬
idence amassed to support the theory of natural selection and the
antiquity of the earth." FI e therefore suggests that the biblical rec¬
ord be interpreted via "hermeneutical considerations suggested
by science." FI ere is a perfect example of the Double Revelation The¬
ory at work. Scientific theory has become the controlling factor in
biblical exegesis.

0 ne last example bears mentioning, because it shows the end
results ofthe Double Revelation Theory, In 1991, FI ugh Ross au¬
thored The Fingerprint of God as an apologetic for progressive cre¬
ationism, In that volume, he made the following comments:

M ore than speaking merely of G od's existence, the creation,
according to Romans 1, also reveals essential truths about
God's character, which would include FI is desire and means
to form a relationship with man. As an illustration ofthe ac¬
cessibility of that information, the Bible includes an account
of an ancient character, j ob (I ob 7-19) who, without the aid
of scriptures, and in opposition to the religion of his peers,
discerned all the elements of "the gospel," the good news
of how man can find eternal life in God. The creation, thus,
reveals all the necessary steps to develop a right relation¬
ship with God. These steps are uniquely corroborated by the
Bible (pp. 181-182, emp. in orig.).

This is a perfect example of where the Double Revelation Theory
will lead. It begins with natural and special revelation being equal.
Eventually, however, natural revelation takes a position of preemi¬
nence—because, after all, it is based on empirical evidence. Finally,
Ross' position triumphs. Man no longer needs God's special rev¬
elation to instruct him on the plan of salvation; rather, that is evi-

Voices of Compromise

dent through nature, and the B ibie merely "corroborates” it. H ar-
old Lindsell, while serving as editor of Christianity Today magazine,
addressed this idea when he wrote:

...to acceptthe story of Eve's beginnings as given in Gene¬
sis in any historicai sense is to knock the theory of evoiution
into a cocked hat. It brings to bear upon the creative process
divine intervention that drives the uniformitarian hypothesis
and the endless eons of evolutionary development into the
ground. If, in the face ofthe biblical data, the theistic evolution¬
ist chooses to accept the hypothesis of some scientists, he at
least should be conscious of what he is doing to the Bible in
theprocess. Heno longermakesitthesourcebookforhis
knowledge of origins. In place thereof he chooses the verdict
of science and allows it to sit in judgment on the B ibie rather
than letting the Bible sit in judgment on science (1977, pp.
15-17).

When Dr. Lindsell spoke of the fact that science ultimately will be
allowed to "sit in judgment" on the B ibie by the person who accepts
the Double Revelation Theory, he was absolutely correct. On May
5-7, 2000,1 had the opportunity to speak at a large gathering of
young people in Elizabethtown, Kentucky. During one of the lec¬
tures, I discussed the literal nature ofthe account found in Gene¬
sis 1-11, and how that account clearly was in opposition to the G en-
eral Theory of Evolution. During the question and answer session
that followed one of my lectures, a young girl who appeared to be
roughly of high school age (I learned later that she was, in fact, a ju¬
nior in high school) raised her hand. When I called on her, she ex¬
pressed strong disagreement with such a view, and went on to say
that she believed firmly in evolution and viewed Genesis 1-11 as
nothing more than a convenient mythology fabricated by H ebrews
who did not have the vast scientific data that we possess today.

In my response, I very kindly disagreed with her conclusion, and
went to great lengths to explain that both the Lord and H is inspired
writers not only viewed Genesis 1-11 as literal and historical, but
frequently used the content of those chapters to construct funda¬
mental Bible doctrine (e.g., Matthew 19, where the Lord quoted

Voices of Compromise

Genesis 2:24 to discuss marriage, divorce, and remarriage with the
Pharisees; Matthew 24, where Christ used the global, Noahic Flood
to draw a comparison to the destruction of the Earth at H is Sec¬
ond Coming; 1 Corinthians 15:47, where Paul discussed Adam,
"the first man, of the earth, earthy" and compared him to C hrist as
the "last Adam," etc.). When I demonstrated to the young lady the
damage that ultimately is inflicted upon the biblical record by a full-
fledged acceptance of theistic evolution (the position she was at¬
tempting to defend), she retorted: "But science supports my view!”
In response, I said very simply: "No ma'am, true science does not
support your view. And more important, the Bible as the Word of
God indicates that Genesis 1-11 is literal and historical." She then
raised her voice to be heard and exclaimed: "Well, science is my
God!"

That is exactly where belief in the Double Revelation Theory
leads—which is why it must be rejected by Bible-believing Chris¬
tians. As noted 0 Id Testament scholar Edward j. Y oung remarked:

What strikes one Immediately upon reading such a statement
Is the low estimate of the Bible which It entails. Whenever "sci¬
ence" and the Bible are In conflict, It Is always the Bible that,

In one manner or another, must give way. We are not told
that "science" should correct Its answers In the light of Scrip¬
ture. Always It Is the other way around. Y et this Is really sur¬
prising, for the answers which scientists have provided have
frequently changed with the passing of time. The "authorita¬
tive" answers of pre-C opernican scientists are no longer ac¬
ceptable: nor, for that matter, are many of the views of twenty-
five years ago (1964, p. 53).

Indeed, why is itthatGod's unchanging revelation in the Bible
should be "reinterpreted" to fit the ever-changi ng theories of mod¬
ern scientists?

The writers of the B ibie deal abundantly with matters of fact in
science and history (unlike the writings of Buddhism, Confucianism,
H induism, etc., which deal almost exclusively with faith/ conduct
matters). To take the position that the B ibIe is unreliable when it

Voices of Compromise

deals with verifiable data of science and history inevitably will cause
thinking inquirers to reject its teachings on theological beliefs, j esus
said, "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall
ye believe if I tell you of heavenly things?" (| ohn 3:12). If] esus and
H is writers have told us about "earthly" things and we are not pre¬
disposed to believe such, how can we be expected to believe state¬
ments from these same men with regard to spiritual matters such
as redemption, sanctification, justification, etc.?

The Bibie must be accepted as inerrant and authoritative on all
matters with which it deals. Otherwise, it is not really the Word of
God. If any man, or group of men, is empowered to tell us author¬
itatively what God's Word means, then we may as well entrust him
(or them) with a commission to rewrite the B ibIe altogether. M an
seeks to become G od (whether he is a theologian or scientist) if he
insists that his word must be accepted over and above what God's
Word says. While the Double Revelation Theory may be popular in
certain circles, it fails to address certain realities—not the least of
which are the tremendous limitations that inhabit the scientific meth¬
od. As Michael Poole has suggested:

Public opinion about science ranges between making it into
a god, and despising it. Some people have regarded science
as the sole means to peace and prosperity on earth. B ut, when
the god failed to deliver the goods, they despised it. To treat
science as a secular substitute for God is not only naive, it is
idolatry. To abuse it because it fails to provide the solution to
the world's ills is childish. It compares with the infant who kicks
its toy because it will not do something for which it was never
designed. Between these two extremes lies the rosy-spectacled
view that, although science and technology have caused a
lot of problems, they will also be the means of solving them.

Science and technology are the activities of imperfect peo¬
ple. The tendencies to misuse and exploit for personal gain
operate here as in every other department of life. But the
answer to abuse is not disuse, but responsible use (1990, p.

126).

Voices of Compromise

Furthermore, science cannot deal with once-for-all, utterly unique
events. Science is impotent when it comes to dealing with moral and/
or spiritual (thus, empirically elusive) realities that give significance to
human endeavor. Science fails most conspicuously, however, when¬
ever it is forced into the position of trying to analyze the supernat¬
ural and miraculous acts of God. These events undeniably form the
foundation of thej udeo-Christian world view. The scientist or theo¬
logian who accepts the Double Revelation Theory would have us be¬
lieve that even in matters such as these, science always takes prec¬
edence. How so?

Acceptance of the Double Revelation Theory also fails to con¬
sider the effects of sin. While it is true that the heavens declare the
glory ofGod (Psalm 19:1), it also is true that the eyes of man's un¬
derstanding, blinded by sin, do not always read the heavens aright.
The noetic effects of sin often lead to anti-theistic presuppositions.
M uch is presented as "scientific fact" that is hostile to the conclu¬
sions presented in the Bible. Whitcomb has commented:

Those who exclusively employ the scientific method in his¬
torical sciences (e.g., paleontology) uncritically apply this
method in a uniformitarian manner by extrapolating pres¬
ent natural processes forever into the past. F urthermore, they
ignore the possible anti-theistic bias of the scientist himself
as he handles the facts of nature in arriving at a cosmology
(i.e., a theory concerning the basic structure and character
of the universe) and a cosmogony (i.e., a theory concern¬
ing the origin of the universe and its parts). To the extent
that such theorists fail to give careful and honest recognition
to these essential limitations of the scientific method and of
the investigator himself, they fail to give a true and undistort¬
ed picture of reality as a whole, and they fail also to point men
to the only true source for understanding its mysteries (1978,
p. 56, emp. and parenthetical items in orig.).

It certainly is true that God cannot deny H imself (2 Timothy 2:
13). God's Word always will agree with God's world, for the Author
of the one is the Creator of the other. God's revelation in nature of¬
ten can amplify and illustrate H is Word, but H is written revelation

Voices of Compromise

always must inform and constrain our interpretation of nature. Y es,
God has spoken to us through nature. N umerous passages attest to
that fact (I Ob 12:7-8; 26:13-14; Psalm 19:1-2; 97:6; Acts 14:17;
17:24-28; Romans 1:20-21). The proper use of science and tech¬
nology not only helps man to implement the Edenic commission to
"subdue and have dominion over the earth" (Genesis 1:28), but al¬
so teaches men more and more about the person and work of their
Creator-God. God's revelation in nature, therefore, always must
supplement and confirm H is revelation in Scripture. It cannot
be used to correct or interpret it. If there Is an apparent conflict
—one that cannot be resolved by a more careful study of the
relevant data of both science and Scripture—then the writ¬
ten Word always must take priority!

THEISTIC EVOLUTION

In 1 Kings 18:21, Elijah chastised the people of God for not tak¬
ing a stand for their God. H e asked, "H ow long halt ye between two
opinions? If the Lord be God, follow H im: but if Baal, then follow
Him." Henry Morris, in commenting on this passage, stated:

The spirit of compromise that prevailed among the people of
God in Elijah's time also manifested itself in the mid-nine¬
teenth century, as C hristians labored to accept both God and
evolution, both the Bible and the ages of geology. This was not
surprising, for in every age there has been conflict between
God and the Devil and a corresponding tension between the
world-system and the community of the saints, and always
there have been those among the latter who seek to ease
the tension by yielding up some ofthedistinctives of the Bi¬
ble-founded separatism to which they were called. N either is
it surprising then that the same spirit of compromise is mov¬
ing strongly today among erstwhile Bible-centered Christians
(1966, p. 97).

Some today prefer a "middle-of-the-road" approach to the mat¬
ter of origins—a concept generally known as "theistic evolution"
(sometimes referred to as "religious evolution," "mitigated evolution,”
or "spiritual evolution"). What, exactly, is theistic evolution?

Voices of Compromise

The word "theistic” derives from the Greek word, theos, mean¬
ing God. Therefore, when one claims to be a "theistic” evolutionist,
he is claiming to believe in both God and evolution at the same time.
It is not always easy to provide a simple, comprehensive definition
for theistic evolution because the concept is altered by its adherents
to suit their own personal situations. Some, for example, would sug¬
gest that G od created the initial building blocks of matter and then
allowed the evolutionary process to take over—including the spon¬
taneous generation of life. Others contend that God created not only
the primary building blocks of matter, but also life itself, and then
placed into operation natural laws through which evolution oper¬
ated over eons of time. Still others would argue that G od not only
created the building blocks and gave life a "push," but actually in¬
tervened from time to time, even though evolution was the mode
of operation. Generally speaking, those in this last group prefer to
be called "progressive creationists" rather than out-and-out theistic
evolutionists. Their views will be discussed later in chapter 12. The
following definitions from the literature offer a summary of the con¬
cept known as theistic evolution.

Many Christians, inciuding men ofscience asweiiastheo-
iogians, accommodate the discoveries of science in their re-
iigion by suggesting that God did not create the worid (in its
present form) supernaturaiiy. Rather, He used naturai pro¬
cesses as H is "method of creation," and guided evoiution to
the finai reaiization of man. In this view, Adam's body was
produced as a resuit of the process of evoiution, and God
then compieted H is "creation" of man by giving him an eter-
nai soui. The creation of iife as described in Genesis is thus
recognized to be essentiaiiy poetic, oratieastto befiexibie
enough to permit God a wide iatitude in H is method of cre¬
ation. This interpretation is generaiiy referred to as "theistic
evoiution" (Young, 1985, p. 46, emp. and parentheticai item
in orig.).

The theistic evoiutionist hoids a position somewhat between
that of the absoiute evoiutionist and the creationist. H e be-
iieves that God created the materiais of our universe and then
guided and superintended the process by which aii iife has

Voices of Compromise

evolved from the very simplest one-celled form on up to the
sophisticated forms which we know today. Evolution was
God's method of bringing about the present development,
though originally the materials were created by God (Baxter,

1971, p. 159).

What is theistic evolution? Believers in God generally take the
position that God made the universe, including the laws of
nature, so that the universe moves along in response to these
laws. Ifone drops an object to earth, it is expected to behave
in accordance with the law of gravitation as formulated by
scientists as a result of their observation. Both theists (believ¬
ers in God) and atheists (disbelievers in God) believe that there
are natural laws by which the universe operates. The athe¬
ist believes that there was no first cause but that this sys¬
tem has gone on for eternity, so that prior to each effect there
has existed a totally adequate natural cause. When a natural
effect occurs for which there was not a totally adequate nat¬
ural cause, then supernatural intervention has occurred.
Theistic evolution postulates that such intervention accounts
for some actions in evolution (Camp, 1972, p. 192, emp.
and parenthetical items in orig.).*

IS THEISTIC EVOLUTION POPULAR?

Is theistic evolution popular? Indeed it is. M any today have ac¬
cepted it as a "way out" of having to make a decision in favor of
either creation or evolution. Thus, it has become the "middle of the
road” position that so many Christians already have taken on a
myriad of other issues (e.g.: verbal inspiration, the virgin birth, the
resurrection, miracles, etc.). As Wysong has observed:

* 0 n occasion, there is some confusion about the definition of theistic evoiution in re¬
gard to naturai iaws. Camp has addressed this matter: "Theexpression 'theistic evo¬
lution’ is sometimes used to refer to the concept that God created natural laws which
would cause evolution to take place and thus in this guiding principle, God can be
said to be the author of life. This notion cannot be said to be 'theistic evolution' in
any meaningful sense. 0 ne might as well refer to theistic rain, theistic thunder, theis¬
tic earthquakes, etc. These natural phenomena can be observed, yet we believe that
they have totally adequate natural causes though a theist will no doubt believe God
created those natural forces while an atheist will not believe in God. The phenomena
are not regarded to be a result of divine intervention into the laws of nature" (1972,
p. 63),

100

Voices of Compromise

Theistic evolution has been advocated in the past by men like
Augustine and Aquinas. Today it is vogue. It is downright hard
to find anyone who does not believe in evolution in one form
or another, and it is also difficult to find anyone who does
not believe in a creator in one form or another. This hybrid
belief has given reprieve to those not wishing to make a to¬
tal commitment to either side (1976, p. 63).

H enry M orris assessed the current trend in this manner:

The sad fact is that evolutionism has also deeply affected evan¬
gelical schools and churches. After all, even modern ultra-lib¬
eral theological schools (e.g., H arvard, Y ale) and denomina¬
tions (e.g., Methodist, Episcopalian) were once orthodox and
zealousforthe Scriptures. These institutions have traveled
down the road of compromise with evolutionary humanism
farther than most, but many evangelicals today seem to have
embarked on the same icy road, unaware of the dangers ahead
and impatient with those who would warn them. Evangelicals
(meaning those who accept the inerrant authority of the B i-
ble and believe in the deity of Christ and his substitutionary
death and bodily resurrection) generally "dare not call it com¬
promise" and perhaps are not even aware of it. But compro¬
mise they have, in many, many instances. Some have accept¬
ed full-blown theistic evolution, but many more believe in either
"progressive creation" or "reconstructive creation" (i.e., the
so-called Gap Theory). ...the sad truth is that many evangeli¬
cal leaders, who profess to believe in biblical inerrancy and
authority, have also compromised with evolution (1989, pp.
101,104, emp. and parenthetical items in orig.).

Sadly, the proof substantiating Dr, M orris' statements is not hard

to come by. For example, Stanley Beck, of the American Lutheran
Church, once remarked:

T 0 call himself reasonably well-educated and informed, a C hris-
tian can hardly afford not to believe in evolution. Evolution,
including human evolution, is no longer in contention. Evo¬
lution has been demonstrated so thoroughly...even produced
experimentally, that it has ceased to be a matter of opinion.

And to announce that you do not believe in evolution is as
irrational as to announce that you do not believe in electric¬
ity (1963, pp. 316-317).

101

Voices of Compromise

J .D. Thomas offered this summary:

This view is aiso commoniy accepted by many others who ac¬
cept bioiogicai evoiution. M ajor reiigious groups today which
hoid for some form of theistic evoiution inciudethe Roman
Cathoiics who count it to be their officiai doctrine of the ori¬
gin of man. SomeJ ews, paiticuiariy the extremeiy iiberai ones,
hoid to this view, and the Protestant theoiogians which are
normaiiy counted as Liberais are very strong in favor of the¬
istic evoiution (where they accept God); and the Neo-Or¬
thodox or Existentiaiist theoiogians foiiow in this same pat¬
tern since they aiso accept much of the "Scientific Naturaiism"
thatLiberaiism hasheidto over the years. There are aiso sev-
erai who wear the iabei of conservative theoiogians, some
of them quite outstanding, who have accepted theistic evo¬
iution in some manner, beiievingthatthe arguments favor¬
ing evoiution are strong enough that they must be accepted:
and they have feit that this is the best way to find agreement
between the Bibieand science.... Some caii their view "pro¬
gressive creationism," some "threshoid evoiution...." Each of
these terms impiies that there is something about the gen-
erai doctrine of evoiution which must be accepted (1965, pp.
177-178, parentheticai item in orig.).

The evidence suggests that belief in theistic evolution has been pop¬
ular in the past, and remains popular today.

WHY DO PEOPLE BELIEVE IN
THEISTIC EVOLUTION?

Why do people choose to believe in theistic evolution? First, no
doubt many believe in theistic evolution because they feel that the
evidence for organic evolution actually having occurred is just too
strong to ignore. Nobel laureate George W. Beadle put it this way:

0 ne must accept all of evolution or none. A nd the evidence
for organic evolution Is overwhelmingly convincing. ...belief
In evolution. Including the spontaneous origin of life from non¬
living antecedents, need In no way conflict with religion (as
quoted In Buffaloe, 1969, pp. 17,20,21).

j an Lever of the Free University of Amsterdam remarked:

102

Voices of Compromise

...when we thus place side by side the knowledge which we
possess of the higher life of the P rimates of the P leistocene
Epoch and the revelation that man has been brought forth
within that which has been created, then we may not reject
in advance the possibility that the genesis of man occurred
by way of a being that, at least with respect to the character¬
istics of its skeleton, was an animal, according to our norms
and criteria. ...we may not reject in advance the possibility that
there has existed a genetic relation between man and animal
(1958, pp. 197,221, emp. in orig.).

In a symposium on "Origins and Christian Thought Today" held at
Wheaton College on February 17, 1961, Walter Hearn stated:

...surely we know that processes have been involved in bring¬
ing us into existence. Why shudder, then, at the idea that pro¬
cesses were involved in bringing Adam into existence? Grant¬
ed that we do not yet know details of the processes, why
may we not assume that God did use processes? (1961, p.

42, emp. in orig.).

Edward L. Kessel presented thetheistic evolution point of view by
suggesting:

0 nee H e had established the material of N ature, and the laws
of Nature to govern its activities. He used this mechanism
to continue creation—creation by evolution (evolvement, de¬
velopment).... j ustasan open-minded scientist must heed the
evidence and recognize that there must be a God, the non¬
scientist must likewise heed the evidence and recognize that
creational evolution was G od's method of creation, once H e
had produced the material of the universe and established
its laws (as quoted in Baxter, 1971, pp. 159-160, paren¬
thetical item in orig.).

In speaking of] ames 0 rr, the conservative theologian of the lat¬
ter part of the nineteenth century and the early part of the twenti¬
eth, Davidheiser suggested that he "...entertained views of theis-
tic evolution. Dr. Orrhad thetheory of evolution thrust upon him
and he had to deal with it. H e seems to have been convinced that
the scientists had proved evolution to be true and that he had to
do the best he could with it" (1969, p. 38).

103

Voices of Compromise

This appears to be the attitude of many today. They have had
the theory of evolution "thrust upon them,” and the only way they
know of "doing the best they can with it" is to attempt to incorpo¬
rate it into the biblical record. They therefore make a conscious de¬
cision to become theistic evolutionists.

Second, some people believe in theistic evolution because they
are convinced in their own minds that it not only is not contradic¬
tory to the Bible, but is, in fact, quite compatible with the Divine Rec¬
ord. Albertus Pieters, in his Notes on Genesis, wrote:

If a C hristian believer is inclined to yield as far as possible to
the theory of organic evolution, he can hold that man's body
was prepared by God through such a natural process, and
that, when this process had reached a certain stage, God took
one of the man-like brutes so produced, and made him the
first human being, by endowing him with a human soul and
a morally responsible nature.... In such a conception there
is nothing contrary to the Bible (1947, p. 201).

J ames H efiey, writing in Eternity magazine, stated: "A distinguished
university professor and respected Christian told me, I believe that
science has proved certain forms of evolution.... I believe this does
not conflict with the Biblical account of creation" (1965, p. 21).

Neal Buffaloe, writing in M ission magazine, said that he believed
"the concept of evolution is neither degrading to man, detrimental
to human dignity, nor in conflict with the Bible” (1969, pp. 17,20,
21). J ohn N .Clayton, a lecturer on Christian evidences and editor
ofa bi-monthly journal titled DoesGod Exist?, ison record as stat¬
ing: "If we look carefully at the issues about which we are talking,
however, we can find that evolution and the B ibie show amazing
agreement on almost all issues and that one is not mutually exclusive
of the other” (1976b, p. 130).

In the September/ 0 ctober 1984 issue of his Does God Exist?
magazine, j ohn Clayton published, approvingly, an article titled
"Monism, Belief, and Scientific Explanations" by Pepperdine Uni¬
versity biology professor Norman H ughes. In his article. Dr. H ughes
wrote:

104

Voices of Compromise

It is unfortunate that so many believers seem to have accept¬
ed an idea that has grown out of philosophical monism: the
idea that there is either a naturalistic explanation (discovered
by man and therefore understandable by man, i.e., "scientific")
for a natural event, or there is a supernatural explanation (not
known or understood by man, except to whatever degree di¬
vine revelation may have enlightened him for the same event).

This brief essay is an attemptto set forth the thesis that such
a choice is neither necessary nor beneficial. In fact, the essence
of the dualism of Scripture is that the bel iever can accept
both natural and supernatural explanations at the
same time.... The idea that to whatever extent one accepts
evolutionary explanations, to that degree one has elim¬
inated God's role in the creation of life is an idea based on a
fallacy (1984a, 11[5]:16, emp. added, parenthetical items
in orig.).

Was Dr. H ughes advocating theistic evolution? Indeed he was. And
one does not have to "read between the lines" to reach such a con¬
clusion because H ughes himself settled the matter once and for all
in a letter he wrote to the editor of the J ournal of the American Sci-
entificAffiliation in which he stated: "I amatheist—I believe inGod
and in J esus C hrist as H is revelation to humankind. I am an evolu¬
tionist—I find many biological phenomena which are not explain¬
able except by the theory of evolution. But please, don't call me a the¬
istic evolutionist!" (1986, 384[4]:282). [One wonders exactly what
Dr. H ughes would expect to be called, if not a theistic evolutionist.
Perhaps he would prefer "evolutionary theist.”]

After reading Dr. H ughes' article in J ohn Clayton's journal, Wayne
j ackson of Stockton, California, wrote to inquire if he was, in fact,
a theistic evolutionist. [In the December 1984 issue of the monthly
paper he edits. The Christian Courier, j ackson authored an arti¬
cle titled "A Pepperdine Professor and Evolution” that documents
all of these facts (1984, 20:29-31).]On November23,1984, Dr,
H ughes graciously responded by letter as follows:

I do insist again that the basic thesis of the article is valid,
i.e., that one can hold both a naturalistic and a supernatural
explanation for the origin and the continuation of natural phe-

105

Voices of Compromise

nomena at the same time.... Asa scientific theory, organic ev¬
olution has a number of weaknesses, but at the same time,
it provides explanations for certain natural phenomena which
I could not otherwise explain. To the extent that I find evolu¬
tionary theory useful, I have no hesitancy in using it (1984b,
p. 1).

Apparently people like Buffaloe, Clayton, H ughes, and others who
think like them, believe that there is no conflict whatsoever between
the Genesis account of creation and evolution; therefore, anyone
who wishes to espouse theistic evolution is free to do so, without
worrying about any contradiction (real or alleged) that it might pre¬
sent in regard to the biblical material on origins.

Third, there are those who believe that the concept of theistic
evolution somehow heightens God's glory by having allowed H im
to create the U niverse via an evolutionary process. They feel this
makes God "more believable,” and simultaneously bestows more
honor on H im. Paul Amos M oody, in his book. Introduction to Evo¬
lution, addressed the issue in this fashion.

It Is just as possible to worship a G od who works through na¬
tural laws, slowly evolving life on this planet, as It Is to wor¬
ship a God who creates by sudden command. In fact. Is not
our concept of the C reator Immeasurably heightened when
we understand more and more of the Intricate workings of
this marvelous universe? Such a C reator Is of far greater stat¬
ure than would be a miracle worker who created things once
and for all back In 4004 B.c. (1970, p. 496).

In commenting on this idea, Davidheiser remarked:

Theistic evolution is as old as the acceptance of evolution by
the nominal C hristian church. Those who hold this position
consider evolution to be a fact, but they believe that it has been
divinely directed instead of coming about through natural pro¬
cesses. It is frequently said by those who advocate theistic
evolution that it is a grander concept to think of God work¬
ing in this way than to think of Him producing living creatures
by fiat creation. H owever, what is important is what the B i-
ble says, and not what men may think is grander (1969, p.

168).

106

Voices of Compromise

Fourth, no doubt there are some theistic evolutionists who be¬
lieve it "just doesn't matter" one way or the other, j ,D. Thomas
reviewed this position in his book, Facts and Faith,

In connection with a study of evolution it is important that
we consider the question of theistic evolution or "religious"
evolution, which question is a real problem to some people.

The reasoning is, that inasmuch as so many people do be¬
lieve in evolution, what is the use of "making a big fuss about
it"? They feel that we might accept some basic principles
about evolution and yet hold for the existence of God and
for creation in some way—that perhaps God simply used evo¬
lution as the means of getting man here (1965, p, 15),

In commenting on theistic evolution, j ohn Clayton suggested that
"While there is no evidence biblically or scientifically to support such
a position, these people do have one very excellent point, and that
is that this whole subject is totally irrelevant to the question of the
existence of God” (1976b, p, 131), EdwardJ ohnCarnell, in his book.
The Case for Orthodox Theology, assessed the matter rather bluntly
when he wrote: "If G od was pleased to breathe FI is image into a
creature that had previously come from the dust, so be it" (1959, p,
95), Buffaloe—with what might best be described as a "shrug of the
shoulders" attitude—said: "What do we care that man the animal is
a product of evolution as long as man the spirit is begotten of G od?"
(1969, pp, 17,20,21),

Fifth, theistic evolution is popular among some people because
they feel Genesis has not told us how God created, Russell Mixter,
former president of the American Scientific Affiliation, was a pro¬
ponent of this view, FI e felt that "Genesis 1 is designed to tell Who
is the creator, and not necessarily how the full process of cre¬
ation was accomplished" (1961, p, 25, emp, in orig,).

There are other reasons, of course, that could be listed to doc¬
ument why so many B ibie-believing people choose to accept evo¬
lution, Many, no doubt, are influenced by the steady stream of evo¬
lutionist propaganda appearing in such widely read publication as
National Geographic, Reader's Digest, Weekly Reader, Discover,

107

Voices of Compromise

Scientific American, and a host of others. Fear of being viewed as
"anti-intellectual” likely causes some to opt for theistic evolution,
The influence of co-workers, friends, or peers also cannot be ruled
out. Pressure to conform to the status quo is quite severe, especially
in the scientific community. The love of "all things worldly" likely is
responsible for many falling prey to theistic evolution. And, the de¬
sire to avoid controversy at all cost probably is responsible for the ac¬
ceptance of theistic evolution among certain groups of people.

THEISTIC EVOLUTION AND THE
VOICES OF COMPROMISE

In attempting to help people see the effects of the compromise
of theistic evolution, Paul Zimmerman asked:

Is it possible for us, as faithful interpreters of Scripture and
believers in God's Word, to accept theistic evolution? If we
do so, what are the consequences, if any? H ave we perhaps,
out of a stubborn conservative spirit, been dragging our feet
when we should have gone along with evolution? There are
many who feel that our insistence on creation as opposed
to evolution imposes an intellectual obstacle to the faith of
young people in today's scientific age (1972, p. 97).

M any in the religious community believe C hristians simply should
"go along with evolution." Bernard Ramm is just one example. In
The Christian View of Science and Scripture, he wrote:

We have noted that already orthodox thinkers (Protestant
and C atholic) have affirmed that evolution, properly defined,
can be assimilated into Christianity. This is strong evidence
that evolution is not metaphysically incompatible with
Christianity. The final answer, however, must come from
one with responsible leadership. It must come from the best
of evangelical scholarship which is fair, competent, and
learned. It must come from our better thinkers in biology, ge¬
ology, and theology, and not from more vocal or less able
men. It must not come by the cheap anti-evolutionary tract
nor from pulpiteering, but from that evangelical scholarship
which is loyal to the best academic scholarship and to the
sound teachings of Holy Scripture (1954, pp. 292-293, emp.
and parenthetical item in orig.).

108

Voices of Compromise

Thus, Ramm asks us to "check our brains at the church house door"
so to speak, and let "competent scholarship" do our thinking for
us. In light of such a suggestion, a good question might be: "What
position will 'competent scholarship' urge upon us?” In his book.
The Long War Against God, H enry M orris provided the answer.

In 1973 an unofficial survey was conducted among the sci¬
ence teachers in the Christian Coiiege Consortium, an as¬
sociation of a dozen or so prestigious evangeiicai coiieges
(Wheaton, Gordon, Westmont, etc.). The report of the sur¬
vey inciuded the foiiowing summary: "Efforts to character¬
ize and identify with the departmentai positions resuits in aii
respondents caiiing themseives 'theistic evoiutionists,' 'pro¬
gressive creationists,' or infrequentiy 'fiat creationists'." The
great majority of these teachers thus teach either theistic
evolution or progressive creation—that is, when they do not
bypass the subject aitogether... (1989, p. 104, parentheti-
cai item in orig.).

D r. M orris went on to discuss the results of a second survey taken
in 1980. Of69 schools to whom questionnaires were sent, 52 re¬
sponded. Of those, 48 replied that they did not consider the topic of
origins important, and 31 stated categorically that they did not teach
the Genesis account of creation to be literally true (1989, p. 105).

In some cases, it appears that Dr. Ramm has gotten his wish,
"Competent scholarship" has spoken—and what has it said? j ames
j auncey, in Science Returns to God, commented that:

There are a great number of biologists who at ieast tenta-
tiveiy beiieve in evoiution, but who nevertheiess are active
members of Christian churches and find no probiem at aii.
Thegenerai attitude is that even if evoiution were proved to
be true, instead of making God unnecessary, itwouid mereiy
show that this was the method God used (1961, p. 20).

Dr. J auncey stated further:

This kind of thinking wouid consider the evoiutionary pro¬
cess as the means that God is using. The point that the au¬
thor wishes to make here is that even if the origin of man
from the evoiutionary hypothesis were proved to be correct,
there stiii wouid be no insoiubie difficuity for the Christian
interpreter (p. 49).

109

Voices of Compromise

In 1954, Ramm said:

To this point we have shown that evoiution with aii neces¬
sary quaiifications has been adopted into both Cathoiic and
Protestant evangeiicai theoiogy and has not meant the dis¬
ruption of either. To charge that evolution is anti-Chris¬
tian, and thattheistic evolution is not a respectable
position, is very difficult to make good in view of the
evidence we have given (pp. 289-290, emp. added).

Fifteen years later, when Bolton Davidheiser wrote his classic vol¬
ume, Evolution and Christian Faith, he observed:

In recent years a new thing has happened, and this is more
dangerous to C hristian faith than the attacks and ridicule of
the evolutionists. Men of science who profess to be Bible-
believing Christians are telling conservative Christian audi¬
ences that it is not only all right to believe at least a certain
amount of evolution, but that it actually is necessary to do
so (1969, p. 39).

The evidence suggests that many Bible believers, especially young
people, are falling prey to the idea that they can believe in evolution
in one form or another. FI ugo M cC ord, while professor of B ibie and
biblical languages at what was then Oklahoma Christian College
(now 0 klahoma C hristian U niversity of Science and A rts), wrote of
his experiences with the freshmen in his Bible classes.

It is my privilege of teaching all Oklahoma Christian College
F reshmen in their first B ibie course on this campus. Since we
start with Genesis it is not long till the subject of evolution
arises. It is distressing that some from Christian homes are
quite firm believers in evolution. Each year, after students
listened to a taped lecture on "The Bible and Evolution," ques¬
tions are written out and handed to me. One of the ques¬
tions shows that there is the belief in theistic evolution: "What
is so wrong about believing that such things really occurred
gradually, with the help of God? I have no problems corre¬
lating evolution and my religion" (1968, pp. 771,777).

It is not surprising that youngsters are so willing to accept theistic
evolution, considering what "competent scholarship" urges upon
them. In 1986, forexample, students in the biology classes of two
professors at Abilene Christian University (Acu)-Kenneth Williams

110

Voices of Compromise

and Archie Manis—were taught that "the fact of evolution is beyond
dispute." Dr. Manis urged his students to study the Genesis account
(he had given them a photocopy of Genesis 1 from his personal B i-
ble, with the words "myth, hymn" scribbled in the margin beside Gen¬
esis 1:1), and then to synthesize a "personal statement of belief
about origins" (see Thompson, 1986, pp. 10-16). A serious and sus¬
tained controversy erupted when alumni of the U niversity (including
a number of alumni from the biology department itself) discovered
that Genesis was being labeled a myth and evolution was being
taught as fact. Those alumni, and others who opposed the teaching
of evolution as the correct view of origins, rose up in arms against
Acu . Financial support to the school decreased. Parents who had
planned to send their children to acu decided against doing so.
And so on.

T ragically, rather than admit the obvious and correct the prob¬
lem, the University Administration and Board of Directors publicly
denied that there was any problem with the professors' teachings
—in spite of firm, eye-witness testimony from former and current
students. F riends of the U niversity counseled then-president, W il-
liam J. Teague, that one way to convince the institution's many fi¬
nancial supporters and alumni that the charges against its biology
professors were false was to publish a book on the very topic of the
controversy—creation and evolution.

Two years later, in 1988, U niversity officials did just that, and
released for distribution the volume titled Evolution and Faith.
Ironically (or perhaps not), the University chose as editor of the
book] .D. Thomas, former chairman of acu's Bible department
and a well-known advocate of the Gap Theory (1961, p. 54). At
first, it seemed odd that the U niversity would choose a man who
for so long has been recognized for compromising the creation
account. Flowever, after reading the volume that he edited for acu,
it was apparent that he was chosen because of this reputation, not
in spite of it. Assisting Thomas were other acu faculty members,
and one Board member (J .T. Ator). The book addressed such top-

111

Voices of Compromise

ics as biology (J .R. Nichols), chemistry (P.C, Reeves, dean of the
College of Science), physics (M.E. Sadler), astronomy (J ,T. Ator),
origins and the Bible (I.A. Fair, Bible department chairman), and
the week of creation (N .R. Lightfoot), Interestingly, there was an ap¬
pendix by J ohn N, Clayton of South Bend, Indiana—who is known
widely for his many compromises of the creation record (for doc¬
umentation, seej ackson and Thompson, 1992). President Teague
penned the foreword.

The thrust of the book was crystal clear. For example, an entire
chapter (by Sadler) was devoted to the proposition that "experimen¬
tal evidence indicates that we live in a universe that was created ov¬
er 10 billion years ago, after which the heavier elements were formed.
The age of our solar system is about 4-5 billion years." Where does
this line of reasoning lead? Dr. Sadler continued:

The B ibie does not say how old the earth Is, much less the
solar system or the universe. To judge as heretics all those
who believe that the present universe has evolved
from a big bang is unfair and creates controversy over
something that is certainly not a central part of Chris¬
tianity (1988, p. 93, emp. added).

Do certain teachers at acu present the evolutionary Big Bang
scenario as the method of the origin of the U niverse? Y es indeed,
as is evinced from the fact that one of the authors of the book, A r-
liej. FI oover, subsequently published an article on "God and the Big
Bang” in which he suggested that "it is entirely possible” that "God
used a big bang as FI is method of creation." Dr. FI oover went on to
suggest: "Because the Bible does not specify how God did it, we are
left to choose the hypothesis that seems to have the best support¬
ing material.” Fie concluded his article by stating: "The big bang the¬
ory is far from being established, but we should not reject it as if it
necessarily contradicted the biblical account of Creation” (1992,
134[9]:34-35).

D r. Sadler suggested that these things are not "a central part of
Christianity," and Dr. FI oover stated that "the Bible does not spec¬
ify how God did it.” Yet a comparison between the evolutionary Big

112

Voices of Compromise

Bang scenario and the Genesis record of origins establishes nu¬
merous contradictions between the two. [note: For an in-depth dis¬
cussion of those contradictions, seej ackson, 1993, 28:41-43.]

In the chapter following Dr. Sadler's, acu Board member Ator
instructed the reader not to place "unnecessarily restrictive" limi¬
tations on Genesis 1. H e then stated that the days of Genesis were
not really "days" at all, but long periods of time (1988, pp. 96-97),
from which he concluded: "The data just reviewed has [sic] driven
scientists to the conclusion that the universe must have an age of be¬
tween fifteen and twenty billion years" (p. 105). H is entire chapter
was devoted to the idea that "one should not 'force fit' his or her own
ideas into the brief, beautiful, pristine creation account in Genesis”
(p. 115), and then he proceeded to do just that. Oddly, one chap¬
ter later Bible Department chairman Ian Fair wrote:

While it is possible to consider the term "day" in the Flebrew
language to mean "time" or "age," this does seem to strain
the simplest interpretation ofGenesis l:3ff. We will notice be¬
low that the Biblical theologian should have no difficulty with
the "24-hour day" interpretation if the text is permitted
to speak in its own literary context and within its own
purpose... (1988, pp. 146-147, emp. in orig.).

FI owever, in the following chapter Neil Lightfoot wrote regarding
the word "day" as used in G enesis 1: "0 bviously this is not a sim¬
ple question with a clear-cut answer. ...here dogmatism is not only un¬
wise but unscriptural" (1988, pp. 172,173, emp. in orig.).

FI ere is a book—whose alleged purpose is to build faith in the cre¬
ation account among college-age youngsters—which suggests that
the Gap Theory (espoused by Thomas and Clayton) is correct. No,
ignore that. The Day-Age Theory (espoused by Sadler and Ator) is
correct. No, ignore that. The days of Genesis are to be accepted as
24-hour periods (according to Fair). No, ignore that. There is no way
to come to any clear-cut answer regarding the length of the days of
Genesis (says Lightfoot). No, ignore that. The Big Bang scenario is
the correct view of the origin of the U niverse (FI oover and Sadler

113

Voices of Compromise

think). Pity the poor Acu student reading this volume. What is he
or she to believe? From beginning to end, the book is filled with con¬
tradictions and false teachings on the creation account and related
passages.

N eal B uffaloe, professor of biology at the U niversity of C entral
Arkansas in Conway, and a member of the Christian Church (Dis¬
ciples of Christ), teaches his students that:

It is simply a fact that it [evolution— bt] produced that won¬
der which we know as the human species.... We have sought
to show that evolution is not in itself the enemy of Theism,
as the Creationists mistakenly assume, but rather can reason¬
ably be interpreted as providing support for the doctrine of
divine creation (Buffaloe and Murray, 1981, p. 20, emp. in
orig.).

In 1999—eighteen years after Dr, Buffaloe wrote his college text¬
book, and thirteen years after the fiasco at Abilene Christian U niver¬
sity—M ike G ipson, a science professor at 0 klahoma C hristian U ni¬
versity of Science and A rts in 0 klahoma C ity, 0 klahoma (which is
supported by individual members and congregations of the churches
of C hrist), penned a letter to the editor of 0 klahoma C ity's largest
and most prominent newspaper, the Daily Oklahoman. H is letter
(which appeared in the "Y our Views” section of the November 24,
1999 issue of the paper under a general heading titled "Textbook
Disclaimer Advocacy") was written in response to a November 14,
1999 editorial discussing a State-proposed "disclaimer” being con¬
sidered for inclusion in all books used in 0 klahoma that discussed
evolution. The editor of the Daily Oklahoman had suggested that
the disclaimer (which pointed out to students that evolution is not
a fact, and is only one possible explanation of how the U niverse and
its contents came to be) was "elegant and non-offensive.” Dr. Gip¬
son wrote in strong disagreement.

First, he complained because the disclaimer "implies no gradu¬
alism at all in the fossil record.” Second, he complained because the
disclaimer "suggests that the hundreds of transitional forms claimed
by paleontologists automatically have no merit. In my judgment.

114

Voices of Compromise

this is not,,.intellectually honest,” Gipson then concluded: "Evolu¬
tionary theory, like all science, is tentative. Within the realm of faith,
many of us hold religious explanations for the source of the diver¬
sity of life around us. Within the realm of science, evolution—though
theoretical-currently appears to be the best explanation” (Gip¬
son, 1999, A-8, emp, added).

Little wonder so many young people today are confused on what
to believe regarding the biblical account of creation, considering
the exposure they receive to this kind of material (much of it from
professors who claim to be Christians!). Can evolution "reasonably
be interpreted” to fit the Genesis account? Is evolution really "the
best explanation" for the origin of the U niverse and its inhabitants?
Can we believe (and still be true to the Scriptures) that "such things
occurred gradually, with the help of God”—and not affect adversely
either our faith or our salvation? I suggest the answer to these kinds
of questions is an apodictic "No!" And I agree wholeheartedly with
Coppedge when he observed: "Some believers in God are not clearly
aware that the Bible and evolution are not compatible. They suppose
thattheistic evolution is a philosophy acceptable to the Christian
faith, not having thought through the contradiction involved" (1975,
p. 177),

The remainder of this book examines that contradiction, and at¬
tempts to help people see that theistic evolution and its counterparts
undermine the authority of both God and H is Word. Were it pos¬
sible somehow to take a comprehensive poll of church members,
that poll likely would show that many today quite willingly espouse
theistic evolution as "God's method of creation.” While this is un¬
fortunate indeed, it should not be all that surprising—in light of the
minuscule amount of teaching we have offered in the past on this
topic. While teaching on sin, heaven, hell, the resurrection, grace,
faith, and love (all important topics), many times we have failed to
teach Genesis 1 in its proper perspective. The result is a member¬
ship that believes in theistic evolution without really knowing its ram¬
ifications or end results. As H osea said long ago, "My people are de¬
stroyed for lack of knowledge" (Hosea 4:6).

115

Voices of Compromise

Were C hristians to be made aware of the logical implications of
their belief in evolution, some would retreat from the ranks of the-
istic evolutionists post-haste. The problem appears to be that many
Christians are not aware that it is an "either,..or” situation when it
comes to belief in creation and evolution—not a "both,..and.” That
dichotomy is the topic of the next chapter.

116

Chapter 5

Either...or," Not
"Both... and"

D uring the late 1940s, Woolsey T eller, second president of
the A merican Association for the Advancement of Athe¬
ism, debated J ames D. Bales of Harding College (now University).
During one of his speeches, Mr. Teller exclaimed: "If evolution is ac¬
cepted, Adam and Eve go out! That story, the Bible fable, is inter¬
esting mythology but it doesn't present the true picture of the ori¬
gin of man” (1976, p. 54).

The point is well taken. If one accepts evolution, the Bible does
not present the "true picture" of the origin of man or, for that mat¬
ter, anything else in the U niverse. The thrust of M r. Teller's argument
was this: It is an "either...or" proposition, not a "both,..and." Either
one accepts evolution, or one accepts creation. But it is not pos¬
sible, logically, to accept both evolution and creation.

The key word here is "logically." Theism, by definition, entails
supernaturalism; evolution, by definition, entails solely naturalistic
processes. This is why, in chapter 2,1 presented in such detail the
evolutionists' definitions of their theory. AsDr, Simpson emphat-

117

Either...or,” Not "Both...and

ically stated, evolution is a fully natural process. Zimmerman
couched the problem in these terms:

In other words, once the premise of evolution is granted that
matter interacts with itself under the guidance of the process
of natural selection, there is no need of God. Theistic evolu¬
tionists of course deny this. In effect they would attempt to bap¬
tize the theory and to make it Christian. After two decades
of reading evolutionary literature, both philosophical and sci¬
entific, I am of the opinion that this baptizing cannot be ef¬
fected. The theory is based on the interaction of matter with
matter. It is based on the changes which are produced by
chance and which are then developed by natural selection.

If one places God's guidance into the process, he vi¬
olates one of the basic tenets of the theory (1972, p.

121, emp. added).

Evolution is based, in its entirety, on naturalism; creation requires
supernaturalism. 0 ne cannot, with consistency, inject the super¬
natural into evolutionary theory and have it remain evolutionary the¬
ory. There is no such thing as "supernatural naturalism."

Of course, there are those who assert that belief in both creation
and evolution is possible because, they say, they are the living proof
of exactly that—people who do believe in both. "Can't we be Chris¬
tian evolutionists?" they ask. In his book. King of Creation, Henry
Morris dealt with this very issue:

Y es, no doubt it is possible to be a C hristian and an evolu¬
tionist. Likewise, one can be a Christian thief, oraChristian
adulterer, or a Christian liar! Christians can be inconsistent
and illogical about many things, but that doesn't make them
right! (1980, pp. 83-84).

The question for a person who accepts the Bibie as the inspired Word
of God is not whether he can hold to a belief in theistic evolution.
Rather, the question is whether he can believe in theistic evolution
and remain logically consistent, without impugning the Bible or
its Author. To put it another way: "Is it right?" A second, equally im¬
portant question is: "Where will such a belief eventually lead?” Dar¬
rel Kautz, in The Origin of Living Things, concluded:

118

Either.,.or,” Not "Both,,.and

The theistic-evolution approach to biblical interpretation is
highly rationalistic: that is, greater weight is given to human
logic than to the reality of divine inspiration. When such a
methodology is employed, it is just a matter of time until the
Bible, in all its parts, is viewed merely as an ordinary book,
and no longer as a fully trustworthy, divinely inspired docu¬
ment. Man's word supplants God's Word, and biblical truth
becomes clouded—even lost. It is not difficult for a perceptive
individual to see that theistic evolution leads to double talk.

The Scripture is and is not God's word; it is and is not trust¬
worthy; it is and is not history: it is and is not the ultimate
source of Christian theology (1988, p. 30).

Wysong observed what occurs once a person begins this journey
toward belief in theistic evolution.

M any hold to evolution while at the same time espousing be¬
lief in a creator. The result is a sort of hybrid, a baptized evo¬
lution called theistic evolution.... The creator is used here as
a vindicator of evolutionary difficulties. With time, as evolu¬
tionists explained more and more by naturalism, the creator
was crowded further and further back in time and given less
and less responsibility. For many, theistic evolution is only be¬
lieved transitorily. The position is often only a filler, an easily
passed bridge from theism to atheism (1976, p. 63).

The long-range resultsof belief in theistic evolution can be tragic
indeed. The sad part is that so few C hristians realize it until it is too
late. Over a century ago, during the time of Darwin, j amesM. Wil¬
son held the position of the Canon of Worcester as a minister, and
simultaneously taught science. In his discussion of the transforma¬
tion that belief in evolution brought upon his life, he stated clearly
the reasons that caused him to all but abandon his faith.

The evolution of man from lowerformsof life was in itself a
new and startling fact, and one that broke up the old theology.

I and my contemporaries, however, accepted it as a fact.

The first and obvious result of this experience was that we
were compelled to regard the B ibiical story of the Fall as not
historic, as it had long been believed to be.... But now, in
the lightof the fact of evolution, the Fall, as a historic event
...was excluded and denied by science.... If there is no his¬
toric Fall, what becomes of the redemption, the Salvation
through C hrist? FI o w does) esus save FI is people from their
sins? (1925).

119

Either...or,” Not "Both...and

J ulian H uxley boasted: "Darwin pointed out that no supernatural
designer was needed; since natural selection could account for any
known form of life, there was no room for a supernatural agency
in its evolution" (1960d, p. 46). The cost of opting for evolution is
much higher than many at first realize.

"LOGICAL ILLITERATES, SCIENTIFIC
SIMPLETONS, FOOLS, AND MENACES"

On Thursday evening. May 23,1985 I participated in atelevised
debate with renowned evolutionist and humanist, Delos M cKown.
The setting was the Tracey Larkin show on A labama P ubiic Tele-
vision. The audience was composed of the people of Alabama. The
show aired at 6:30 p.m.

The day before, I had received a telephone call from M r. Larkin,
asking if I might be willing to meet Dr. McKown in order to discuss
the creation/evolution controversy. I gladly accepted the invitation.
D r. M cKown was no stranger to me. H e is well known in evolution¬
ist/ humanist circles. At the time of our debate, he was the chairman
of the philosophy department at Auburn U niversity (he since has
retired), and wrote often for anti-creation publications such as the
humanist journal Creation/Evolution. In fact, he had just authored
a fictional novel. With Faith & Fury (1985), which depicted a fun¬
damentalist preacher who tangled with an evolutionist and (of course)
lost. The novel was published by the humanist publishing firm, P ro-
metheusPress, of Buffalo, NewYork. Eight years later, in 1993, Dr.
McKown authored (and Prometheus published)The Myth-Maker's
Magic—Behind the Illusion of "Creation Science," which wasa
frontal attack on biblical creationism.

As the debate opened. Dr. McKown fired a salvo intended to leave
the audience with the impression that all legitimate scientists of
repute are evolutionists. H e quoted from a booklet that had just been
published by the National Academy of Sciences (the 1984 volume.
Science and Creationism: A View from the N ational Academy

120

Either.,.or,” Not "Both,,.and

of Sciences) that sought to present evolution as a scientific fact, H e
suggested that evolution is accepted by "all scientists" as represen¬
tative of the truth regarding human origins. Dr. McKown then opined
that the only view that should be presented in public schools was the
evolutionary scenario. I quickly reminded him, however, that by tak¬
ing such a position he had put himself at odds with his famous men¬
tor, C harles Darwin, as well as the great public defender of evolu¬
tionary theory, Clarence Darrow, Darwin, for example, stated in the
"Introduction" to his 1859 publication. The Origin of Species:

I am well aware that there is scarcely a single point discus¬
sed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often
apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those
at which I have arrived. A fair result could be obtained
only byfully stating and balancing the facts on both
sides of each question (emp. added).

During the famous 1925 "Scopes M onkey Trial," Clarence Dar¬
row stated that it was "sheer bigotry" to teach only one theory of
origins. [Of course, at the time Darrow had reference to the teaching
of only creation, in the absence of evolution, but his statement is true
nonetheless.]! asked Dr, McKown what would be wrong with al¬
lowing students to have access to al I the evidence, so they could ex¬
amine it at their leisure and then make up their minds without fear
of undue coercion. The Auburn philosophy professor recoiled in ut¬
ter shock at such a suggestion, and stated that exposing students to
such concepts would be tantamount to putting astrology back in¬
to astronomy, or the stork back into obstetrics. H e stated that if we
put the "so-called evidences" (to use his exact terminology) for cre¬
ation into the public schools, students quickly would see that they
had been "sold a bill of goods."

I hastened to point out to Dr, McKown that students in public
schools already had been "sold a bill of goods,” in that they were
being allowed to see only one small segment of the evidence regard¬
ing origins—the side the evolutionists wanted them to see.
The fact of the matter is that creationists have an impressive arse-

121

Either...or,” Not "Both...and

nal of evidence at their disposal which helps to establish the con¬
clusion that the creation model fits the available scientific facts far
better than the evolution model. [See my book, The Scientific Case
for Creation (1999e), for a presentation and discussion of much
ofthat evidence.]The one-sided indoctrination of students in this
materialistic philosophy in the tax-supported schools of our plural¬
istic, democratic society is a violation of both academic and religious
freedoms. Furthermore, it is poor education and poor science.
T 0 remedy this intolerable situation, creation scientists insist that
only after students have had an opportunity to weigh all the data,
consider each alternative, and examine the implications and con¬
sequences of both positions, are they then able to determine cor¬
rectly which is more credible and rational. That Is good educa¬
tion, and good science! But, as Harvard-trained lawyer Norman
Macbeth accurately pointed out in his book, Darwin Retried (1971),
evolutionists (and this certainly would include Dr. McKown) are al¬
most irrationally fearful of creationists, and are determined to prevent
them—at all costs—from presenting any scientific evidence that sup¬
ports creationism.

In the last 60 seconds of the debate, the television host, Mr. Lar¬
kin, was wrapping up the evening's discussion when he remarked
to Dr. McKown that the creationists seemed to be making a good
bit of progress in their efforts to set forth the scientific evidence for
creation. Upon hearing this, D r. M cKown exploded in a burst of in¬
censed rhetoric, and stated in no uncertain terms that, indeed, cre¬
ationists were making a good deal of headway—but due only to
the fact that our nation is filled with (and this is a direct quote from
Dr. McKown) "logical illiterates and scientific simpletons."

While such a statement may have been as shocking to the peo¬
ple of Alabama as it was insulting. Dr. McKown hardly is the only
evolutionist making such public, inflammatory statements, j ust a brief
four years after Delos McKown's tirade, the eminent British evolu¬
tionist, Richard Dawkins, offered the following blunt assessment of

122

Either.,.or,” Not "Both,,.and

those who choose to believe in creation as opposed to evolution: "It
is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims
notto believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid,
or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)" [1989, p.
34, emp. added, parenthetical comment in orig.].

In 1991, Phillip J ohnson, a lawyer with impeccable credentials
from both H arvard and the U niversity of C hicago, and a professor
at the U niversity of California at Berkeley, authored a volume titled
Darwin on Trial. H is book—which became practically an overnight
best seller—presented a withering critique of Darwinian evolution,
and included this assessment:

The official scientific organizations, however, are at war with
creationism, and their policy is to demand unconditional sur¬
render.... T 0 the zealots, people who say they believe in God
are either harmless sentimentalists who add some vague God-
taikto a basicaiiy naturaiistic woridview, or they are creation¬
ists. In either case they are fools, but in the latter case
they are also a menace (p. 128, emp. added).

"0 h, to see ourselves as others see us," as the old adage goes. To
those who have helped develop, and who ardently defend, the con¬
cept known as the G eneral Theory of Evolution, those people who
believe in G od are fools, and creationists are worse by far because
they are logical illiterates, scientific simpletons, and fools who are
ignorant, stupid, insane, wicked menaces!

Why is it that theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists, and
old-Earth creationists cannot see what atheists, evolutionists, and
secularists see so clearly? In an article titled "What do Evolutionists
Think about Theistic Evolution?" Trevor Major wrote:

It is precisely this compromise that worries many defenders
of evolution:...theistic evolution is as unacceptable as special
creation. Darwin'svictory was hollow, they complain, if it can
be shown that something outside nature is necessary to ex¬
plain the U niverse or life.... Evolution renders God superflu¬
ous, if not nonexistent (1994b, 14:55).

123

Either...or,” Not "Both...and

While the theistic evolutionist is trying to find more ways to weave
evolutionary theory into the biblical text, the secularists are telling him
not to bother because the attempt is futile. Some evolutionists even
have gone so far as to applaud strict creationists publicly for their
consistency, if not for their beliefs. 0 ne evolutionist's applause went
like this:

C heer N umber 0 ne goes to the creationists for serving ra¬
tional religion by demonstrating beautifully thatwemust take
the creation storiesof Genesis at face value.... Many Chris¬
tians have taken the dishonest way of iengthening the days
into miiiions of years, but the creationists make it ciear that
such an approach is nothing but a makeshift that is unac-
ceptabie Bibiicaiiy and scientificaiiy.... Creationists deserve
Cheer Number Two for serving rationai reiigion by effectiveiy
eiiminating "theistic evoiution".... Creationists rightiy insist
that evoiution is inconsistent with a God of iove.... Three
cheers, then, for the creationists, for they have cieared the
air of aii dodges, escapes and evasions made by C hristians
who adopt non-iiterai interpretations of Genesis and who hoid
that evoiution is God's method of Creation (Matteii, 1982,
pp. 17-18).

M ichael D enton, certainly no friend of either the B ibie or its doc¬
trine of creation, addressed the damage to C hristianity resulting from
a consistent belief in evolution when he wrote:

As far as C hristianity was concerned, the advent of the the¬
ory of evoiution and the eiimination of traditionai teieoiogi-
cai thinking was catastrophic. The suggestion that iife and man
are the resuit of chance is incompatibie with the bibiicai as¬
sertion of their being the direct resuit of inteiiigent creative ac¬
tivity. Despite the attempt by iiberai theoiogy to disguise the
point, the fact is that no biblically derived religion can
really be compromised with the fundamental asser¬
tion of Darwinian theory. Chance and design are anti-
theticai concepts, and the decline in religious belief can
probably be attributed more to the propagation and
advocacy by the intellectual community of the Dar¬
winian version of evolution than to any other single
factor (1985, p. 66, emp. added).

124

Either.,.or,” Not "Both,,.and

In one of H is parables, recorded in Luke 16:8, J esus made this
observation: "The sons of this world are for their own generation
wiser than the sons of light," 0 h, how true—and what a tragic state
of affairs! We have God's inspired Word at our fingertips in our own
mother tongue. We have the wisdom of the ages contained within
that single volume. We have the word of the C reator on what H e did,
and how H e did it. We even have it laid out before us in chrono¬
logical, day-by-day detail. And we then ignore it, in favor of the man¬
made doctrine of evolution—a concept invented in the first place for
the very purpose of ridding man of his Creator,

Little wonder that] ulian H uxley stated concerning theistic evo¬
lution: "God is unnecessary" (1960a, p. 45). George Gaylord Simp¬
son referred to C hristianity as a higher form of superstition that in
many ways actually is inferior to the superstitions of native tribes,
and referred to church services as "higher superstitions celebrated
weekly in every hamlet of the United States" (1964, p, 4), Erasmus
Darwin, Charles Darwin's grandfather, had absolutely no use for
C hristianity and its concept of origins—a point he made abundantly
clear when he said: "As for the being of a G od, the existence of a soul,
or a world to come, who can know anything about them? Depend
upon it,,.these are only the bugbears by which men of sense gov¬
ern fools" (as quoted in Camp, 1972, p, 176). Thomas H, H uxley
regarded Genesis 1 as "the cosmogony of the semi-barbarous H e-
brews" and hated ministers so much that he stated he wanted to get
the heel of his shoe "into their mouths and sc-r-r-unch it around”
(as quoted in Himmelfarb, 1959, p. 216).

M ore often than not, the theistic evolutionist has not followed his
belief to its logical end. Evolutionists like KirtleyF, M ather of H ar-
vard University have, however. Dr. Mather wrote:

When a theologian accepts evolution as the process used by
the creator, he must be willing to go all the way with it. N ot
only is it an orderly process, it is a continuing one. Nothing
was finished on any seventh day: the process of creation is
still going on. The golden age for man—if any—is in thefu-

125

Either...or,” Not "Both...and

ture, not in the past.... Moreover the creative process of evo¬
lution is not to be interrupted by any supernatural interven¬
tion. ...the spiritual aspects of the life of man are just as surely
a product of the processes called evolution as are his brain
and nervous system (1960, pp. 37-38).

During the 1959 Darwin Centennial Convocation at the Univer¬
sity of Chicago to celebrate the one-hundredth anniversary of the
publication of The Origin of Species, Sir] ulian Huxley stated:

Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator of
organisms from the sphere of rational discussion.... There was
no sudden moment during evolutionary history when "spirit"
was instilled into life, any more than there was a single mo¬
ment when it was instilled into you.... I think we can dismiss
entirely all idea of a supernatural overriding mind being re¬
sponsible for the evolutionary process (1960d, pp. 45,46).

Simpson later remarked: "Purpose and plan are not character¬
istic of organic evolution and are not a key to any of its operations"
(1967, p. 293). British agnostic Bertrand Russell wrote:

Religion, in our day, has accommodated itself to the doctrine
of evolution.... We are told that...evolution is the unfolding
of an idea which has been in the mind of God throughout. It
appears that during those ages...when animals were tortur¬
ing each other with ferocious horns and agonizing stings, 0 m-
nipotence was quietly waiting for the ultimate emergence of
man, with his still more widely diffused cruelty. Why the Cre¬
ator should have preferred to reach H is goal by a process,
instead of going straight to it, these modern theologians do
not tell us (1961, p. 73).

Donald G. Barnhouse was at one time the editor of Eternity mag¬
azine. H e believed in God, but he also believed in evolution—except
for the evolution of man, whom, he felt, had been specially created
by God. H e said: "M ay we not hold that...God intervened in the past,
even in the midst of a long evolutionary process, and created man
as an entirely new factor?" (1960, p. 8). H e desperately wanted-
to use] ulian H uxley's phrase—"a sudden moment during evolution¬
ary history when 'spirit' was instilled into life.” Bolton Davidheiser
correctly concluded that such is wishful thinking.

126

Either.,.or,” Not "Both,,.and

Biologistsin general, of course, would not consider this for a
moment. This Is an unstable position. It Is unreasonable to
think that evolution would go just so far and no further. Some
think they can maintain this position, but students cannot be
expected to stop believing In evolution at the human level If
they are taught that everything else evolved. The trend today
Is to Indoctrinate students with the concept that man Is an
animal, so why should they stop short of man In accepting
evolution If they are told they may accept the rest? (1969,
pp. 173-174).

Biologist Lorraine L. Larison—who has seen what Dr, Barn-
house and others like him have not—issued this warning:

Evolution is a hard, inescapable mistress. There is just no room
for compassion or good sportsmanship. Too many organisms
are born, so, quite simply, a lot of them are going to have to
die, because there isn't enough food and space to go around.

You can be beautiful, fat, strong, but it might not matter. The
only thing that does matter is whether you leave more chil¬
dren carrying your genes than the next person leaves. It's true
whether you're a prince, a frog, or an American elm. Evolu¬
tion is a future phenomenon. Are your genes going to be in
the next generation? That is all that counts (1977,82:46).

The essence of Darwinism is captured quite accurately in the phrase
"survival of the fittest" because it is a life-or-death struggle for ex¬
istence that results in extermination of the weak and unfit, British
poet Lord Tennyson described nature as "red in tooth and claw."
The renowned philosopher of science, David H ull, observed:

[The] evolutionary process is rife with happenstance, contin¬
gency, incredible waste, death, pain and horror.... Whatever
the God implied by evolutionary theory and the data of nat¬
ural history may be like, H e is not the P rotestant G od of waste
not, want not. H e is also not a loving God who cares about
H is productions. H e is not even the awful God portrayed in
the book of j ob. [H e] is careless, wasteful, indifferent, almost
diabolical. H e is certainly not the sort of god to whom any¬
one would be inclined to pray (1991, 352:486).

As H enry M orris noted: "M any theologians wrote about evolution
as 'God's method of creation,' forgetting conveniently that it was all
supposed to be accomplished by a brutal struggle for existence, with

127

Either...or,” Not "Both...and

the weak perishing and only the fittest surviving” (1984, p. 112).
In addition, it would behoove us to remember:

Evolution has no place for a man starting in a good world, a
man starting with a knowledge of righteousness and true ho¬
liness (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10). Man does notfall from a lofty
position. Rather he is climbing upward under his own power
from a lower position and achieving a higher one. This is the
basic rationale of evolution and cannot be separated from it
(Zimmerman, 1972, pp. 121-122).

That is exactly what Dr. Simpson meant when he said:

M an stands alone in the universe, a unique product of a long,
unconscious, impersonal, material process with unique un¬
derstanding and potentialities. These he owes to no one but
himself, and it is to himself alone that he is responsible. H e is
not the creature of uncontrollable and undeterminable forces,
but is his own master. H e can and must decide and manage
his own destiny (1953, p. 155).

It is true, of course, that some evolutionists appear to be open-
minded about the co-existence of religion and science. B ut that is
generally all it is—appearance. As a lawyer, J ohnson has observed
from personal experience: "M ixing religion with science is obnox¬
ious to Darwinists only when it is the wrong religion that is being
mixed” (1991, p. 128). In other words, the evolutionists will go so
far, and no farther, in their willingness to accommodate religious
concepts. H ere is a perfect example.

Evolutionists recognize that most Americans are religious. They
also know that certain organizations that dispense research funds
do not take kindly to science publicly attacking religion. So, it often
is stated for public consumption that "religion and science may co¬
exist peacefully because they operate in different spheres.” That is
exactly what happened in 1984 when the National Academy of
Sciences mailed to every American school district its publication.
Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy
of Sciences. In the P reface to that document (which was a vicious
attack against creationism), Frank P ress, the Academy's P resident,
said that it is

128

Either.,.or,” Not "Both,,.and

false...to thinkthatthetheoryofevolution represents an ir¬
reconcilable conflict between religion and science. A great
many religious leaders accept evolution on scientific grounds
without relinquishing their belief in religious principles. As
stated in a resolution by the Council of the National Acad¬
emy of Sciences in 1981, however, "Religion and science are
separate and mutually exclusive realms of human thought
whose presentation in the same context leads to misunder¬
standing of both scientific theory and religious belief" (1984).

From a simple, straightforward reading of Dr. Press' statements,
one would get the impression that there is no "irreconcilable con¬
flict" between evolution and religion. But this, too, is wishful think¬
ing, suggests William Provine, a historian of science at Cornell Uni¬
versity. Dr, Provine, in speaking specifically about Dr, Press' com¬
ments, said that "these rationalizations are politic, but intellectually
dishonest." Strong words indeed, but as P rovine went on to explain:

M odern science directly implies that the world is organized
strictly in accordance with mechanistic principles. There are
no purposive principles whatsoever in nature. There are no
gods and no designing forces that are rationally detectable.
...Second, modern science directly implies that there are no
inherent moral or ethical laws, no absolute guiding principles
for human society. Third, human beings are marvelously com¬
plex machines. The individual human becomes an ethical per¬
son by means of two primary mechanisms: heredity and en¬
vironmental influences. That is all there is. Fourth, we must
conclude that when we die, we die and that is the end of us.
...Finally, free will as it is traditionally conceived—the free¬
dom to make uncoerced and unpredictable choices among al¬
ternative possible courses of action—simply does not exist.
...There is no way that the evolutionary process as currently
conceived can produce a being that is truly free to make choices
(n.d., pp. 25-29).

The idea that evolutionists are willing to allow a peaceful coex¬
istence between creation and evolution is a pipe dream. Evolution¬
ist Douglas Futuyma, to citejust one example, made that point clear:

Anyone who believes in Genesis as a literal description of
history must hold a world view that is entirely incompatible
with the idea of evolution, not to speak of science itself....

129

Either...or,” Not "Both...and

Where science insists on material, mechanistic causes that can
be understood by physics and chemistry, the literal believer
in Genesis invokes unknowable supernatural forces.

Perhaps more important, if the world and its creatures de¬
veloped purely by material, physical forces, it could not have
been designed and has no purpose or goal. The fundamen¬
talist, in contrast, believes that everything in the world, every
species and every characteristic of every species, was de¬
signed by an intelligent, purposeful artificer, and that it was
made for a purpose. N owhere does this contrast apply with
more force than to the human species. Some shrink from
the conclusion thatthe human species was not designed, has
no purpose, and is the product of mere mechanical mecha¬
nisms—but this seems to be the message of evolution (1983,
pp. 12-13).

Furthermore, there is compelling evidence that the evolutionary
community will not sit by idly while creationists (or theistic evolu¬
tionists) attempt to provide an alternative to students. The Ameri¬
can Scientific Affiliation (asa) is composed of scientists who believe
in G od and yet who, for the most part, openly advocate theistic ev¬
olution and/ or progressive creation in matters of origins. In what
was a calculated and direct response to the N ational Academy of
Sciences' 1984 pamphleton Science and Creationism, in 1987
the ASA produced and distributed a 48-page booklet. Teaching Sci¬
ence in a Climate of Controversy: A View from the American Sci¬
entific Affiliation. The general tenor of the booklet was to encour¬
age "open-mindedness,” especially in light of what the asa called
"open questions" having to do with origins. But, asj ohnson noted:
"Persons who claim to be scientists, but who try to convince school
teachers that there are 'open questions' about the naturalistic un¬
derstanding of the world, are traitors..." (1991, p. 128).

No doubt the naive members of the ASA were shocked at the
events that transpired subsequent to the publication of their book¬
let. Their evolutionary colleagues were not willing to be nearly as
tolerant as they at first had indicated in their political diatribes. In
fact, retribution against the asa booklet was swift and merciless. Ev-

130

Either.,.or,” Not "Both,,.and

olutionary biologist William Bennetta organized a group of his evo¬
lutionist colleagues to respond to the asa publication, labeling it
"an attempt to replace science with a system of pseudoscience de¬
voted to confirming Biblical narratives" (1987, pp, 36-43). In The
Science Teacher of M ay 1987, there appeared a collection of es¬
says edited by Bennetta, and written by nine scientific heavyweights
such as Stephen) ay Gould, NilesEldredge, Douglas Futuyma, Vin¬
cent Sarich, and others.

The authors of the ASA booklet were shocked and bewildered at
the response of their evolutionary colleagues. Dr, Press had assured
them that there was no "irreconcilable conflict between religion and
science.” But when a group of theistic evolutionists from the asa
attempted to take him at his word and make their views known as
publicly as the National Academy of Sciences' had been, suddenly
they had a war on their hands. What had happened, they wondered,
to the "open-mindedness" of their scientific colleagues? A (though
he wrote twenty-three years before this controversy, the late) ames
D. Bales nevertheless offered an explanation as to why people such
as the members of the N ational Academy of Sciences would not be
likely to tolerate—much less accept—the position of theistic evolu¬
tion as advocated by those in the American Scientific Affiliation,

Evolution is based on the assumption that one must explain
all things naturally. It is inconsistent to bring in God at the
very beginning of the process, or anywhere along the line. If
one calls on God to perform a miracle to putthe spirit—the
imageof God—in an evolved body, this is just as much a mir¬
acle as if the body had been created directly by God.... The
theistic evolutionist who believes that God miraculously put
the imageof God in an animal body, and made man, will be
looked down upon as being as ignorant and prejudiced as
the man who says that the body of man was also miracu¬
lously created. In fact, some of them will have greater scorn
for the theistic evolutionist because he is supposed to know
that evolution did take place, but he refuses to acceptthe log¬
ical consequences of the hypothesis.... If one brings God, and
the miraculous, in at any place why not in all the places which

131

Either...or,” Not "Both...and

are indicated in the Bible? The introduction at any place
of God and the miraculous destroys scientific expla¬
nations, because by the very definition of terms a scientific
explanation is a natural explanation which can be proven ex¬
perimentally. Consistent evolutionism cannot accept the nat¬
ural evolution of plants and animals, and the supernatural
creation of man (1974, 116:52-53, emp. added).

There is no compromise that will please the leaders of evolution¬
ary thought, short of people completely abandoning belief in any
form of creation whatsoever. Y et many C hristians remain convinced
that the road of compromise is the path to travel. 0 nee they have
begun their journey, however, they rarely return to their starting
place. In the first chapter of this book, I provided a quote from G.
Richard Culp that spoke to this very point. Dr. Culp correctly ob¬
served: "One who doubts the G enesis account will not be the same
man he once was, for his attitude toward H oly Scripture has been
eroded by false teaching" (1975, pp. 160-161).

Compromise is a one-way street that ends at a dangerous preci¬
pice. In the case of the compromise of theistic evolution, its logical
outcome is apostasy from the C hristian faith. Eventually, the the¬
istic evolutionist finds himself (or herself) having compromised so
much, and so often, that nothing of C hristianity remains but a hol¬
low shell. Eventually the theistic evolutionist becomes just like the
young high school girl I discussed in chapter 4 who boasted unasham¬
edly: "Science is my God!"

T he tragic part about all of this is that it is so very unnecessary.
God's revelation is complete, self-consistent, and wonderfully sat¬
isfying. N 0 compromise ever will improve on it, as the information
presented in the following chapters documents.

132

Chapter 6

■‘x.

Genesis 1-11:
Mythical or Historical?

O n November24,1859, J .M. DentSi Sonsof London re¬
leased for distribution Charles Darwin's book, The Origin
of Species—a volume that would change forever the perceptions
held by many people regarding their ultimate origin, H owever, long
before Darwin wrote his book, he had seen his own perceptions
of origins change as well. When he was but a young man, his par¬
ents sent him to Cambridge U niversity to become a minister, In fact,
somewhat ironically, the only earned degree that C harles Darwin
ever held was in theology. B ut while studying theology, he also was
studying geology and biology. After his graduation, and a subsequent
five-year voyage at sea aboard theH.M.S. Beagle, Darwin's atti¬
tudes and views had changed drastically.

In 1959, Nora Barlow edited Darwin's autobiography, and in¬
cluded additional material that previously had been unavailable. In
that volume, this amazing statement can be found:

I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testa¬
ment from Its manifestly false history of the world and from

133

Genesis 1-11:
Mythical or Historical?

its attributing to God the feeiings of a revengefui tyrant, was
no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the H indoos,
or the beiiefs of any barbarian (pp. 85-86).

Before Darwin could give himself over wholly to the doctrine of evo¬
lution, he first had to abandon all confidence in the historicity of the
0 Id Testament and any belief in its teachings on origins. That ac¬
complished, he then was able to imbibe evolutionary scenarios with¬
out obvious discomfort.

There is an important moral to this real-life, historical account.
The Genesis account—taken at face value—stands in stark contra¬
distinction to evolutionary theory. Thus, for people who claim to
view the Bible as the Word of God (as Darwin himself once did),
and yet who are determined to retain a belief in evolution (in whole
or in part), there is a very real conflict that must be resolved.

In an attempt to resolve this conflict, some have gone so far as
to suggest that Genesis contains no world view at all. Donald
England, a distinguished professor of chemistry at H arding U niver-
sity in Searcy, A rkansas, took just such a position in his book, A
Christian View of Origins:*

I recognize certain irreconcilable differences between the pro¬
nouncements of science concerning origins and the general
impressions a person gets from reading Genesis 1. H owever,

I feel that this dissonance need not necessarily be disturbing
to a Christian's faith.... [Tjhere is no world view presented
in Genesis 1.1 believe the intent of Genesis 1 is far too sub¬
lime and spiritual for one to presume that it teaches anything
at all about a cosmological world view. We do this pro¬
found text a great injustice by insisting that there is in¬
herent within the text an argument for any particular
world view (1972, pp. 102,124, emp. added).

Dr, England has acknowledged the "irreconcilable differences” be¬
tween Genesis and what he terms "the pronouncements of science,"
but he feels no discomfiture over this "dissonance” because he dis¬
avows any world view whatsoever in G enesis, thereby leaving him¬
self completely free to accept whatever happens to be in vogue scien¬
tifically at the time.

* Donald England’s "Non-World View" will be treated more fully In chapter 12.

134

Genesis 1-11:
Mythical or Historical?

For those who wish to retain some semblance of a world view
in Genesis, however, what kind of amalgamation of the "irrecon¬
cilable differences" between Genesis and evolution can be effected?
J ohn Rendle-Short discussed the solution suggested by many today.

T heistic evo Iuti 0 n ists generally believe that G 0 d has revealed
all that can be known of the world and man In two books, the
book of N ature and the book of Scripture. Since both origi¬
nate from God they must be compatible: there can be no final
disagreement. Evolution, they believe. Is a scientifically ac¬
cepted fact (granted the proviso that God, not chance, was
In control)....

Thelstic evolutionists are well aware that In Genesis 1 and 2
the creation of man Is recorded as having taken place In six
days after the "beginning." They also know that according to
evolution man was created millions of years after the origin of
life. H ere Is the discrepancy. H ow to resolve It? Since there
can be no discordance between the book of N ature and the
book of Scripture, and since both appear true, the error, they
feel, must He In our Interpretation and understanding of the
Genesis account (1984, p. 13, parenthetical comment In
orig.).

0 nee evolution has been accepted as factual, then it is the "in¬
terpretation and understanding of the G enesis account" that must
be addressed. Therefore, theistic evolutionists (and their counter¬
parts—progressive and old-Earth creationists) must find a way to
reinterpret the biblical account of origins in order to accommodate
it to various evolutionary scenarios. The first step in achieving this
goal is to "reevaluate" the literary style of G enesis. As Zimmerman
observed:

In asking whether or notthelstic evolution may be found In
the text, we must come to grips with the question as to what
kind of literature we have In Genesis 1. U niess we decide the
kind of literature we are dealing with, we cannot perform
good exegesis. If It Is historical prose, that Is one thing. If It Is
poetry or myth or saga or symphony, that Is quite another
(1972, p. 102).

135

Genesis 1-11:
Mythical or Historical?

The question then becomes: "What kind of literature is the G enesis
account of creation? M ay we accept it at face value as literal history
-i.e., representing events that took place exactly as described?
0 r, should we view the creation account simply as poetic mythol¬
ogy—i.e., a beautiful story (on the level of a pagan myth, for exam¬
ple), but certainly not literal history?

IS GENESIS 1-11 MYTHICAL OR HISTORICAL?

Is Genesis 1-11 Mythical?

If one accepts that G enesis contains at least some world view,
then the creation account must be either literal or non-literal. For
the theistic evolutionist, of course, that question already has been
answered. There is no possibility whatsoever that a theistic evolu¬
tionist will accept the Genesis account as literal history, since to do
so would align it squarely against evolution. Eventually, then, the
events recorded in the first eleven chapters of Genesis somehow
must be relegated to the status of a myth or an allegory; they can¬
not be viewed as literal, historical events that actually transpired.
This simply is not an option for the theistic evolutionist.

The literature produced by those supporting theistic evolution
proves this to be the case. Infact, itdidnottake long after the publi¬
cation of The Origin of Species for compromise to occur. As early
as 1923, William W. Keen wrote the following in his book, I Be¬
lieve in God and in Evolution:

In this age of general education, I can hardly believe that the
most sincere literalist can insist that while Adam was made
unconscious, an actual rib was taken from his body and out
of it was fashioned a woman; and that Eve and a serpent ac¬
tually conversed together in intelligible speech. To those who
are familiar even in a general way with Oriental literature, all
this is clearly to be understood figuratively and not literally (p. 8).

J ohn L. M cKenzie, writing on "M yth and the 0 Id Testament" in The
Catholic Biblical Quarterly, stated: "It is not a tenable view that

136

Genesis 1-11:
Mythical or Historical?

God in revealing H imself also revealed directly and in detail the truth
about such things as creation and the fall of man; the very pres¬
ence of so many mythical elements in their traditions is enough to
eliminate such a view ” (1959, 21:281).

In referring to the creation account in Genesis, A.M. Ramsey,
one-time A rchbishop of C anterbury and a former president of the
World Council of Churches, concluded: "It is the story of disobe¬
dience of Adam and Eve. There is no necessity for a Christian to be¬
lieve it to be history; indeed, there are reasons why it cannot be
literal history” (as quoted in H edegard, 1964, pp. 190-191, emp.
added). The authors of the popular Westminster Dictionary of the
Bible asserted: "The recital of the facts of creation is obviously not
a literal, historical record” (n.d., p. 119).

Bernard Ramm, in his influential book. The Christian View of
Science and Scripture, suggested that Genesis "is a purified an-
cientworld myth. But through it shines the truth thatGod asLord is
God as Creator” (1954, p. 222). Well-known, neo-orthodox the¬
ologian Rudolf Bultmann spoke of the Israelites as a nation that,
"like other nations, had its creation myths. God was depicted as the
workman, forming the earth and all that is therein out of pre-exis¬
tent matter. Such myths lie behind the creation stories of Genesis
1 and 2 " (1969, p. 16).

AlbertWells, in The Christian Messagein a Scientific Age, at¬
tacked the literal nature of the Genesis record when he wrote: "It is
hardly necessary to regard the G enesis account of creation as literal
truth in order to obtain its true meaning and relevance" (n.d., p.
113). In fact. Wells even went so far as to question the inspiration
of the account by suggesting: "The fact of creation is thus not to be
considered a direct revelation from God, unconditional by histori¬
cal contingencies. It was, rather, an essential component of both the
prophetic and the priestly mind" (n.d., p. 121). In his text, Adam
and the Ape: A Christian Approach to the Theory of Evolution,
R.J. Berry stated:

137

Genesis 1-11:
Mythical or Historical?

The creation of woman from Adam's side need not be in¬
terpreted iiterally: the teaching of Genesis 2:21-22 is obvi¬
ously about the complementarity of the sexes and the mean¬
ing of marriage rather than the evolution of sex or mecha¬
nisms of sexual differentiation (1975).

J. Frank Cassel, a member of the American Scientific Affiliation,
wrote in that society's professional journal:

The Adam-Eve sequence can be explained as spiritual. Wheth¬
er this is true or a dodge is of course an academic question,
for is it not the spiritual message which God seeks to impart
to usTThen why worry about what passages are to be inter¬
preted literally and which figuratively? Look, rather, to God
to reveal himself more fully and more directly to you from
each passage according to your need (1960, 12:2).

M .H. H artshorne believed: "The Biblical account of creation is a
myth, which means that it expresses the fundamental assumptions
concerning the nature and meaning of human existence that the
men of the Bible held” (1958, p. 85).

In 1981, Neal Buffaloeand N. Patrick Murray coauthored a book¬
let, Creationism and Evolution, in which they addressed the type
of literature they perceived Genesis 1-11 to be.

In other words, the Genesis poems are significant not be¬
cause they tell us how things were, or the way things hap¬
pened long ago. Rather, they are talking about man's situa¬
tion now—the eternal importance of man's relationship to
God, and the primordial disruption of that fellowship that
lies at the root of human nature and history. When we read
the ancient H ebrew accounts of the creation—Adam and
Eve, the Garden of Eden, man's "fall" by listening to the se¬
ductive words of a serpent, and God's Sabbath rest—we must
understand...that "these things never were, but always are.

...The stories are told and retold, recorded and read and re¬
read not for their wasness but for their isness" (p. 8, emp.
in orig.).

In speaking of Exodus 20:11, which records God's creation of
"the heavens, the earth, the seas, and all that in them is" in six days,
j ohn C layton remarked that the acceptance of this verse by C hris-
tians as literal history is "a very shallow conclusion” that is "incon-

138

Genesis 1-11:
Mythical or Historical?

sistent with the G enesis record as well as other parts of the B ible”
(1976a, 3[10]:5). This is the case, he explained, because "Exodus
20:11 is a quote of Genesis 2 andGenesis2 isnota historical
account” (1979a, 7[4]:3, emp, added).

Two years before making that statement, in speaking of Gene¬
sis 2 Clayton had written: "This is, incidentally, why the order of
life in C hapter II is different than in C hapter I—it has a different
non-historical purpose" (1977, 4[6]:7, emp. added). When both
the radical nature and the accuracy of that statement were chal¬
lenged (see Jackson and Thompson, 1979), Clayton then went on
the defensive in an attempt to "explain" what he "really" meant.

First of all, I believe Genesis 1 Isa literal, historical account.

Its purpose is to tell us the history of the earth. B ut I do not
believe that Genesis 2 is that kind of historical document....

Now it is historical, and it is historically correct. But
it is not primarily a historical document the way Gen¬
esis 1 is, in my view (1980b).

So G enesis 2 is historical. A nd it is historically correct. B ut it is not
primarily a historical document? Some "explanation”!

This extremely unorthodox (and completely illogical) assessment
by M r. C layton then led him to offer a discussion on the difference,
as he saw it, between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.* In speaking of Mo¬
ses, he said: "Only an idiot would write a history and then re¬
write it—and especially rewrite it backwards" (1980b, emp.
added).

The implication of such a statement is crystal clear: If both Gen¬
esis 1 and Genesis 2 are the same kind of literal, historical narra¬
tive, then an idiot's mentality is reflected! H ere, in summary form,
is Clayton's argument.

* OneofJ ohn Clayton's errors is his inability to recognize that an account may be pre¬
sented out of chronological sequence and yet still be literal and historical.
Acts 10, regarding the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius, is not totally
chronological in arrangement(cf. Actsll, especially vs. 4), butwhatChristian would
go so far as to deny that it is literal history? Similarly, the fact that Genesis 2 is not
arranged from a strictly chronological viewpoint has nothing to do with the fact
that it is literal history.

139

Genesis 1-11:
Mythical or Historical?

(1) If Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are the same kind of literal,
historical documents, then they are contradictory and re¬
flect an idiot's mentality.

(2) B ut they are not really contradictory (hence, not idiotic)
since they are not the same kind of writing; Genesis 1 is
literal history. Genesis 2 is not.

(3) Since Genesis 2 is not a literal, historical account, if Ex-
odus20:ll is taken fromGenesis2 (as Clayton wrongly
suggests it is), then it is not literal history either.

(4) But Exodus 20:11 is based on Genesis 2 (his wrong as¬
sumption).

(5) Therefore, Exodus 20:11 is not literal history and we
are not obliged to believe that the creation occurred in six,
literal, historical days.

From the biblical perspective, however, the M osaic affirmation
—that in six days J ehovah made the heavens, the earth, the seas,
and everything in them (Exodus 20:11)—is a clear reference to Gen¬
esis 1, not Genesis 2. And so, if Exodus 20:11 is based on Gen¬
esis 1 (which it is), and if G enesis 1 is literal history (which C layton
admits), then Exodus 20:11 is a literal, historical account. If
Genesis 2 is not historical, these questions are appropriate.

(1) Did God literally form Adam from the dust of the ground?

(2) Was the Garden of Eden a real, historical place?

(3) Was there an actual tree of knowledge of good and evil?

(4) Did Adam really name all the animals?

(5) Was Eve really made from Adam's side?

If Genesis 2 is not historical, none of these questions can be an¬
swered with certainty. C layton's position is nothing short of rank
modernism.

Approximately a decade after] ohn Clayton began calling into
question the historicity of the Genesis account, another progres¬
sive creationist, Davis A. Young, joined in the fray when he wrote:
"I suggest that we will be on the right track if we stop treating G ene¬
sis 1 and the flood story as scientific and historic reports” (1987,
49:303, emp. added). Three years later, in 1990, he added:

140

Genesis 1-11:
Mythical or Historical?

The most acceptable view of G enesis 1 does not regard it as
a chronicle of successive events during the first seven days
(however long)of cosmic history. Rather, Genesis 1 should be
regarded as a highly structured theological cosmology that
extensively employs a royal-political metaphor because of
the great importance of kingship in the world of ancient Is¬
rael. In contrast to the pagan, pol^heistic myths of the cultures
that surrounded the infant nation of Israel, Genesis 1 portrays
God as the sovereign King who calls into existence by his royal
decrees those creatures that the nations sinfully worshiped
and the myths deified. The days are part of the literary por¬
trayal of the royal council of divine creation and may be em¬
ployed analogously to a temporal succession of decrees by an
earthly kind. The days are days in the sphere of divine action,
a sphere that transcends time, not the first seven days of cos¬
mic history. G enesis 1 is therefore a theological statement and
should not be used to answer scientific questions about the
age and historical unfolding ofthe cosmos that would have
been alien to the Israelites. Genesis 1 tells usthatGod isthe
Creator, butitdoesnottell uswhen orhow he created (pp.
58-59, parenthetical item in orig.).

Six years later, in 1996, two important books were produced by
leading authors and subsequently published by highly respected com¬
panies. The first was by Karen Armstrong, the N ew Y ork Times best¬
selling author of A History of God. In her book. In the Beginning:
A New Interpretation of Genesis (published by Ballantine), she de¬
fended the standard Graf-Wellhausen Documentary Hypothesis,
which suggests that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, but
instead was produced by a multiplicity of authors and/ or redac¬
tors, including those known asj ,E,D, and P. When writing about
those authors' attempts to produce the book of Genesis, she stated:

The authors of Genesis do not give us historical information
about life in Palestine during the second millennium bce. In
fact, as scholars have shown, they knew nothing about the
period. Frequently, they made mistakes.... Our authors
are not interested in historical accuracy.... The tales of
Genesis have a timeless quality because they address those
regions of the spirit that remain opaque to us and yet exert
an irresistible fascination.... Y et precisely because the authors

141

Genesis 1-11:
Mythical or Historical?

of Genesis are dealing with such fundamental and difficult
matters, they give us few precise teachings. There are no glib
or facile messages in Genesis. It is impossible to find a clear
theology in its pages.

...|T]he editors of Genesis seem to have introduced their
readers to P's version of a serene and omnipotent deity only
to dismantle it in laterchapters. TheGod who dominates the
first chapter of the B ibie has disappeared from the human
scene by the end of Genesis. Story after story reveals a much
more disturbing God: as we shall see, the omnipotent God of
the first chapter soon loses control of his creation; the immu¬
table deity is seen to change his mind and even to feel threat¬
ened by humanity. The benevolent C reator becomes a fear¬
ful Destroyer. The impartial God who saw all his creatures as
"good" now has favorites and teaches his proteges to behave
in an equally unfair manner to their dependents. It is impos¬
sible to come away from the Book of Genesis with a co¬
herent notion of God (1996, p. 13, emp. added).

The second significant volume published that year, The Bible as Lit¬
erature, was authored byj ohn B. Gabel, Charles B. Wheeler, and
Anthony York, and was published by Oxford University Press. Ga¬
bel and his coauthors likewise accepted theGraf-Wellhausen docu¬
mentary hypothesis, and therefore wrote:

This hypothesis explains certain obvious repetitions and con¬
tradictions.... We are not citing these problems to undermine
the authority of scripture, as used to be the fashion when pro¬
fessional skeptics would lecture to audiences on "the mis¬
takes of M OSes" [a reference to the famous, nineteenth-century
infidel Robert Ingersoll— bt]. We are merely supplying some
of the data on which the documentary theory rests. Efforts
to reconcile contradictions or explain away problems have
been made and will be made by persons who feel that the in¬
tegrity of the text (which for them means its divine authority)
must be preserved at all costs. The costs, however, tend to be
rather high. Whenever there are contradictions or other prob¬
lems, the documentary theory usually presents a more rea¬
sonable alternative, and it is accepted by a great many schol¬
ars who do not feel their faith threatened by the possibility
that the Bible text, being a product of human history, expe¬
rienced some adventures in reaching the point where it is
now... (1996, pp. 112-113, parenthetical comment in orig.).

142

Genesis 1-11:
Mythical or Historical?

They then asserted that there are two completely different (and con¬
tradictory) "creation accounts" in Genesis 1 and 2, and that the Gen¬
esis "stories” drew from a "shared tradition” with earlier works (such
as the so-called Gilgamesh epic and the Babylonian Enuma Elish).*
The authors continued:

U ntil archaeology and the recovery of ancient languages made
it possible to go behind biblical narratives, there was no way
fora reader of, say. Genesis 8:6-12 to know that the author
was drawing upon an older narrative tradition for details in
his story....

Since the detail about sending out birds from the ark is found
in none of the earlier narratives except the G ilgamesh epic,
we know that this is the version adapted for the He¬
brew Bible, where all the key elements of the tradition are
found.... The use of a shared tradition, and especially
its adaptation to the new use, is perhaps best shown
in the creation story of Genesis 1. This is a reworking
of the Babylonian creation story "Enuma Elish," some¬
times called the "Babylonian Genesis" (pp. 49,50, emp. ad¬
ded).

Then, late in 1999, J effery L. Sheler, a religion writer for U.S.
News& World Report, authored a significant—and highly publi¬
cized—volume, Isthe BibleTrue? H e, too, defended the Graf-Well-
hausen position, and suggested:

Nowhere has the question of literary genre been more cen¬
tral than in the wrangling over the Bible's veracity than in
regard to what many scholars refer to as the "primordial his¬
tory" in the opening chapters of G enesis. What are we to make
of the stories of creation and of Noah's ark and the world¬
wide flood? Should they be taken as literal history, as reli¬
gious myth, or perhaps as some kind of literary hybrid that
combines features of both?...

* For an examination and refutation of the idea that pagan mythology such as the
Gilgamesh epic influenced biblical writers, see Brantley, 1993b, 7:49-53, For an ex¬
amination and refutation of the idea that the Genesis account of creation was influ¬
enced by, and contains elements of, ancient pagan myths such as the Babylonian
Enuma Elish, see Brantley, 1995, pp. 75-92.

143

Genesis 1-11:
Mythical or Historical?

While most biblical scholars consider the story of the flood a
myth or a folktale or assign it to some other category of lit¬
erature that allows for an allegorical interpretation, many con¬
servatives have little difficulty imagining that an omnipotent
God could pull off precisely what the Genesis story describes.

As with the creation narrative, however, the evidence
and arguments from science stack up overwhelmingly
againsta literal interpretation of theflood story....
[T]here is little doubt that a lack of compelling evi¬
dence makes a purely literal reading of the Bible's pri¬
mordial history a most difficult position to sustain.
...Today, a growing number of conservative scholars, hark¬
ing back to Augustine, are convinced that more nuanced
views of the biblical creation account are required to
accommodate the knowledge revealed in science (pp.
48,54,55,52, emp. added).

The positions of the theistic evolutionist, and those sympathetic
with him, are quite clear. Genesis 1-11 cannot be accepted as lit¬
eral history, but must be "reinterpreted" as: (a) mythical; (b) spiri¬
tual; (c) a royal-political metaphor; (d) a discussion of "things that
never were"; (e) a commentary on man's condition now; (f) a "priest¬
ly discussion” for the Israelite people then; (g) etc.

Is Genesis 1-11 Literal?

Contradictory claims of theistic evolutionists aside, the question
remains: "Is the material contained in the first eleven chapters of the
Bible mythical or literal?" Zimmerman has commented:

We cannot make any progress in answering the question un-
tii we decide whether or not Genesis is patentiy unscientific.

By this I do not mean to deai with the question of whether
or not it is a scientific textbook. This red herring oughtto be
buried permanentiy. The question rather is, "Does it contain
information which is correct in substance?" (1968, 1:55).

It is my contention that the material in Genesis 1-11 is histori¬
cally true, and that it represents believable, literal history that is
"correct in substance." I share the view of the eminent 0 Id Testa-
ment scholar, Edward J. Young, when he wrote:

144

Genesis 1-11:
Mythical or Historical?

The position adopted in thisarticie is that the events record¬
ed in the first chapter of the B ibie actuaiiy took piace. T hey
werehistoricai events, and Genesis one, therefore, is to be
regarded as historicai. In employing the word "historical,"
we are rejecting the definition which would limitthe word to
that which man can know through scientific investigation
alone. We are using the word rather as including all which
has transpired. 0 ur knowledge of the events of creation we
receive through the inscripturated revelation of God (1964,
pp. 50-51).

Before I presentthe evidence documenting Genesis 1-11 as lit¬
eral history, I would like to commenton the statement that the Bi¬
ble should be accepted as "literally” true. Oftentimes, creationists
are asked: "D o you believe that everyth i ng in the B ibIe is I iteral ly
true?" The answer to such a question depends on the definition of
the word "literally.” In his book, Christ and the Cosmos, E.H. An¬
drews presented an excellent discussion of this issue. Although it
is somewhat lengthy, I wish to present it here because of its clarity.

First of all, creationism does not insist on a completely literal
interpretation ofthe Bible. Itcallsratherfora literary inter¬
pretation. Let me explain. The word "literal" creates all kinds
of difficulties in people's minds. U sually, those who oppose
the creationist viewpoint attach the label "literalist" to the cre¬
ationist and then use this assignation to ridicule him. But this
is wholly unfair, for the creationist makes no such claim. In¬
deed, if we try to interpret the Bible literally at all points we
find ourselves in all kinds of trouble, fora literal statement is
a statement of precise fact, or as close to that as human lan¬
guage will allow....

We see, therefore, that there are different literary forms em¬
ployed in Genesis 1 and 2. We recognize thatthe Bible uses
literary devices such as metaphor, simile, anthropomorph¬
ism and dramatic forms to convey its message....

H aving established, then, that we do not necessarily interpret
Scripture in a slavishly literal manner, but rather according to
its literary genre and therefore according to the intention of
the author, we nevertheless insist that those passages where
the form and content are historical must be interpreted as
genuine history....

145

Genesis 1-11:
Mythical or Historical?

When we turn to such passages as Genesis 1 to 3, and to the
flood narrative, for example, we find that their contents are
presented plainly as historical fact. Those facts may be ex¬
pressed using a variety of dramatic and literary devices, but
the author nevertheless claims to be relating events that ac¬
tually took place. The narratives are accounts, not of myth,
but of reality. So then, creationism adopts a historical ap¬
proach to these historical portions of Scripture (1986, pp.
80-83, emp. in orig.).

For generations biblical creationism has adopted a historical ap¬
proach to the first eleven chapters of Genesis, and for good reason
—these chapters discuss real, literal, historical events. There
is nothing in the biblical record that suggests G enesis 1-11 should
be viewed as containing mythical or allegorical material. And such
a claim is supported quite adequately by the available evidence. H ere
is a portion of that evidence.

1. T he style of these early chapters of G enesis does not suggest a
mythical or allegorical approach. Thomas H. H orne, in his clas¬
sic, multi-volume set. An Introduction to the Critical Study and
Knowledge of the H oly Scriptures, wrote: "The style of these
chapters, as indeed, of the whole book of G enesis, is strictly his¬
torical, and betrays no vestige whatever of allegorical or figura¬
tive description; this is so evident to anyone that reads with at¬
tention as to need no proof" (1970, 5:6). In his work. Genesis:
H istorical or Mythological?, Edward C. Wharton commented
in the same vein.

From the outset, the Bible is written in the context and ap¬
pearance of sane and sober history. There is not the slight¬
est intimation that these Scriptures contain myth. The histor¬
ical and literal nature of the Record is easily determined in
contrast to the parables, allegories, and symbolisms which
are usually defined within the context. We know, for an illus¬
tration, that Luke 8:4-15 is a parable for it is so stated at the
beginning. We know that Galatians 4:21-31 is an allegory for
the same reason. Where the B ibie teaches by allegory or par¬
able or symbolism it is distinctly so labeled or otherwise eas¬
ily understood in the context. To read the Bible's parables, al-

146

Genesis 1-11:
Mythical or Historical?

legories, etc, and then to read Genesis is to know that Genesis
bears no faint resembiance to any of these, but that it appears
to be what it asks us to beiieveitis—historicaifact(n.d., p. 2).

Edward J. Young declared:

Genesis one is not poetry or saga or myth, but straightfor¬
ward, trustworthy history, and, inasmuch as it is a divine rev-
eiation, accurateiy records those matters of which it speaks.

That Genesis one is historicai may be seen from these con¬
siderations: (1) It sustains an intimate reiationship with the
remainder of the book. The remainder of the book (i.e.. The
Generations) presupposes the Creation Account, and the
C reation Account prepares for what foiiows. The two por¬
tions of Genesis are integrai parts of the book and compie-
ment one another. (2 )T he characteristics of H ebrew poetry
are lacking. There are poetic accounts of the creation and these
form a striking contrast to Genesis one (1964, p. 105).

Concerning Dr. Young'sfinal point, Raymond Surburg wrote:

T 0 discern the difference between the historical narrative of
G enesis 1:1-2:3 as a prosaic account and a truly poetic ver¬
sion of the creation miracle, the reader needs only to com¬
pare Genesis 1 with Psalm 104:5-9: Psalm 12: J ob 38-39:
Proverbs 8:23-31. These are extremely poetic in character.

In Psalms 8 and 19 poetic statements describe the heavenly
bodies but there is a real difference between these statements
and Genesis 1-2 (1969, p. 2).

In his book, The Biblical Basisfor Modern Science, Henry Mor¬
ris commented:

Genesis 1-11 is certainly recorded as serious and sober his¬
tory, and it leads directly and naturally into Genesis 12 and
the rest of G enesis. G enesis in turn is the necessary founda¬
tion for all the rest of Scripture. If these first eleven chapters
are not historical, then our entire Biblical foundation has been
removed (1984, p. 116).

2. The Genesis narrative is to be accepted as literal history because
this is the view adopted byj esus C hrist. As Whitcomb has said:

...It is the privilege of these men to dispense with an histori¬
cal Adam if they so desire. But they do notatthe same time
have the privilege of claiming that] esus C hrist spoke the truth.

r47

Genesis 1-11:
Mythical or Historical?

Adam and J esus C hrist stand or fall together, for J esus said:
"If ye believed M oses, ye would believe me. B ut If ye believe
not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" () ohn 5:46-
47). Our Lord also Insisted that "till heaven and earth pass
away, one jot or one tittle shall In no wise pass from the law
(and this includes Genesis)tlll all things be accomplished"
(Matthew 5:18)[1972, pp. 110-111, emp. and parentheti¬
cal comment In orig.].

In Matthew 19, a discussion between Christ and the Pharisees
is recorded, the topic of which was marriage, divorce, and remar¬
riage. T he passage makes it clear that the P harisees' intent was
to trick the Lord into contradicting the Law of M oses and there¬
by turn the people against H im, because most of the Israelites
viewed Moses with great respect—and rightly so. On that occa¬
sion, however, the Lord did not fall prey to the] ewish leaders'
trap because H e understood their strategy. Instead, H e pointedly
asked those hypocrites: "H aveye not read [citing Genesis 1:27
—BT] that H e who made them from the beginning made them
male and female?" (Matthew 19:4). Concerning this discourse,
Wayne j ackson observed:

H ere j esus plainly affirms that: (l)There was a beginning,
(2)Thefirstcouple was made, (3)They were male and fe¬
male. When Christ spoke of Adam and Eve being "made,"
H e used the aorist G reek verb epoisesen, stressing the fact
that this pair was made by single acts of creation. H ad the
Lord subscribed to the notion that the first humans evolved
over vast ages of time, hewould have employed theGreek
imperfect tense, which is designed to emphasize progres¬
sive action at some time in the past. Thus, Christ actually
verbally refuted the concept of evolutionary development.
And certainly the Lord was in a position to know what took
place in the beginning, for He was there 0 ohn 1:1), and was
the active agent of creation (Colossians 1:16) [1974, pp. 26-
27, emp. in orig.].

In the words of H enry M orris: "Denying the historical validity of
the C reation account also undermines the authority of the N ew
Testament and of Christ H imself!” (1966, p. 92). Whitcomb con-

148

Genesis 1-11:
Mythical or Historical?

eluded: "If Genesis is not historically dependable, then] esus is
not a dependable guide to all truth, and we are without a Sav¬
ior" (1972, p. 111),*

3. The Genesis narrative is to be accepted as literal and historical
because inspired writers of the N ew Testament not only referred
often to the narrative, but also made doctrinal arguments that
depended upon the historical validity of the G enesis account,**
Paul contended that woman was "of" (ek—a Greek preposition
meaning "out of") man (1 Corinthians 11:8,12), He called Adam
and Eve by name in 1 Timothy 2:13, and based his instructions
to C hristians for woman's work in the church on the actual or¬
der of creation. The apostle considered Adam as historical as
M OSes (Romans 5:14), and he clearly said that "the serpent de¬
ceived Eve by his craftiness” (2 Corinthians 11:3),

The creation itself is attributed to the word of God (H ebrews 11:
3), and Peter referred to the emerging of the Earth as an event
that actually occurred (2 Peter 3:5b), There was no question in
Paul's mind aboutGod'sfiatcreation (2 Corinthians 4:6), Like¬
wise, in 1 Corinthians 11:7 the apostle stated that man had been
made in the image of God, and he spoke specifically about man's

* Some writers, influenced by German rationalism, contend that in reality] esus did not
accept the historicity ofGenesis; rather, H e merely accommodated Himself to the ig-
noranceoffirst-centuryj udaism. Such a charge not only is withoutfoundation, but im¬
pugns the deity of C hrist, H .S, M iller emphasized that C hrist "was completely and el¬
oquently silent concerning any error, contradiction, inaccuracy, myth, legend, orforgery
in the 0 Id Testament; strangely and criminally silent, if such existed, T hese either did
or did not exist. If they did exist. He was either (1) ignorant of them, in which case He
was not omniscient, hence not the unique Son of God, hence an impostor, hence a
sinner, hence no Savior; or, H e (2) did know of them and deliberately chose to be silent,
to deceive the people, in which case H e was a dishonest man, a deceiver, an impos¬
tor, a sinner, and no Savior" (as quoted in J ackson, 1974, p. 26).

** In his book. The Genesis Record, Henry Morris provides several appendices, one
of which is titled "Quotations from or Allusions to Genesis in the New Testament"
(1976, pp, 677-682). In Appendix #4, Dr, Morris lists some 200 specific references
to Genesis from the New Testament—powerful testimony to the literal, historical na¬
ture of the Genesis narrative.

149

Genesis 1-11:
Mythical or Historical?

creation in Matthew 19:4 and Mark 10:6. Christwascalled by
Paul "the last Adam" (1 Corinthians 15:45). If the first Adam
was a myth, then is the Iast (J esus C hrist) also a myth? Will the-
istic evolutionists actually be willing to go this far? Alan H ayward
wrote:

Worse still, if we treat the Fall of Adam as a piece of religious
fiction we strike at the very heart of the Christian gospel. The
liberal is forced to reinterpret Paul's teaching about salvation
through Christ's Cross in this fashion:

For as in [the fictitious] A dam all die, so also in the [real] Christ
shall all be made alive.... j ust as we have borne the image of
the [fictitious] man of dust, we shall also bear the image of
the [real] man of heaven (I Corinthians 15:22,49).

If, because of one [fictitious] man's trespass, death reigned
through that one [fictitious] man, much more will those who
receive the abundance of grace and the [real] free gift of
righteousness [truly] reign in life through the one [real]] e-
sus Christ (Romans 5:17).

Such a blend of fact and fiction Isa flimsy foundation on which
to build a doctrine of eternal life. Observe how Paul weaves
Adam's sin and C hrist's righteous death together into the
very fabric of salvation. Paul evidently regarded Adam and
Christ as the two key characters in human history, each play¬
ing a vital role in the destiny of mankind. But if Paul was
mistaken, and Adam's fall is actually little more than a touch¬
ing tale for tiny tots, then why should we believe Paul when
he tells us that C hrist rose miraculously from the dead? A nd
"if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile," Paul warns
us (I Corinthians 15:17) [1985, p. 191, bracketed items in
orig.].

4. The Genesis narrative is to be accepted as literal and historical
because any attempt to "mythologize” it represents an overt at¬
tack upon God's nature. Wayne j ackson has explored this point.

The Bible teaches thatthe creation of the heavens, the earth,
and the inhabitants thereof, was for the glorification of Al¬
mighty God. Any attempt, therefore, to nullify the doctrine of
creation is in reality an assault upon God H imself. "The
heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament show-

150

Genesis 1-11:
Mythical or Historical?

eth H is handiwork" (Psaimsl9:l). "Even everyone iscaiied
by M y name, for I have created him for M y giory. 1 have
formed him, yea, I have made him" (Isaiah 43:7). "For in
H im, and through H im, and to H im, are all things: to whom
be glory forever!" (Romansll:36)[n.d., p. 10,emp. inorig.].

5. The Genesis narrative is to be accepted as literal and historical
because genuine science has not discredited, and from the very
nature of the scientific method cannot discredit, the Genesis ac¬
count of origins. George Howe has discussed this point,

The topic of origins is usually treated as if it lay exclusively
in the domain of science. Such classification is unfortunate
and erroneous when the limitations of the scientific method
are evaluated. Science is properly equipped to cope with prob¬
lems of "how" here and now. For example, such matters as:

"how chromosomes migrate in dividing cells," "how water
ascends in the trunks of trees," and "how sugars move in
phloem tissue" fall clearly in the sphere of science. Y et none
of these sample problems has been thoroughly and abso¬
lutely settled. If scientific methods as yet cannot completely
solve contemporary problems, how can these same methods
be expected to yield absolute answers about origins? This
does not belittle the amazing achievements of experimental
science, but throws the limitations of the method into full fo¬
cus (1964, p. 24).

Many theistic evolutionists have concluded that "science” has
proven evolution true, and in turn has disproven the biblical ac¬
count of creation, B ut their beginning premise is incorrect; sci¬
ence has not proven evolution true. N or will it ever do so, for such
a task falls far beyond the scope of the scientific method.

6. The Genesis narrative is to be accepted as literal and historical
because:

Denying the historical accuracy of the Bible in the account
of creation leads to a doctrinal position known as modern¬
ism. If men evolved from the beast, the sin nature is an in¬
herited animal characteristic and cannot be due to the fall of
man through disobedience. This denies the need of a Redeem¬
er, and thus the atonement of C hrist is neglected or denied
(Davidheiser, 1969, pp. 168-169, emp. in orig.).

151

Genesis 1-11:
Mythical or Historical?

Or, as Culp stated:

ARE THERE TWO (CONTRADICTORY)
CREATION ACCOUNTS IN GENESIS?*

It is common for liberal critics of the B ibie to assert that the book
of Genesis contains two accounts of the creation of the Earth and
mankind (the first in Genesis l:l-2:3, and the second in Genesis
2:4-25). Allegedly, these two accounts reflect different authors, dif¬
ferenttime periods, etc. Further, critics charge that the narratives
contradict each other in several particulars. As one author lamented:
"It is evident that the Pentateuch cannot be the continuous work of
a single author. This is shown by the existence of two differing ac¬
counts (doublets) of the same event: thus e.g. the story of the cre¬
ation in Gen. 1 and 2:4ff.'' (Weiser, 1961, pp. 72-73, emp. and par¬
enthetical item in orig.).

This peculiar, unorthodox view of Scripture is not the exclusive
property of radically liberal theologians; it has made its presence
felt in conservative circles as well. Some, for example, speak of the
"two different creation accounts” (e.g., Buffaloe and Murray, 1981,
p. 7) or the "two 'creation hymns'" (see Manis as quoted in Thomp¬
son, 1986, p. 16).

0 ne of the foundational assumptions of this viewpoint (often re¬
ferred to as "higher criticism") is that the Pentateuch (a grouping
of the first five books of the B ibIe) was not authored by M oses. Sup¬
posedly, several ancient writers contributed to this collection. These

* I would like to thank my friend and colleague, Wayne J ackson, for permission to edit
and reproduce portions of this material from Reason & Revelation, the monthly
journal on Christian evidences that he and I formerly co-edited (and for which I cur¬
rently serve as editor).

152

Genesis 1-11:
Mythical or Historical?

authors are referred to asj, E, P, and D. Some scholars subdivide

them even further, e.g., J \ J ^ etc. "J ” stands for "J ehovah," since
that name for God is prominent in certain sections. "E" signifies Elo-
him, another divine name allegedly identifying certain portions.
"P” purports to be a "Priestly Code,” and "D" identifies what is known
as the "Deuteronomic” writer. The critics claim that all of these writ¬
ings eventually were collected and combined by a "redactor” (edi¬
tor). This theory, known as the Documentary Hypothesis, became
popular in the nineteenth century when J ean Astruc, a French phy¬
sician, claimed that he had isolated certain "source" authors in the
Pentateuch. H is views were expanded and popularized by others
so that by the end of the century numerous biblical commentators
had gravitated to this liberal concept. Though this approach is
widely circulated today, it will not bear the weight of scholarly in¬
vestigation.*

In the case of the "two creation accounts," Genesis 1 is said to
be a "P" document (dating from the Babylonian or post-Babylo¬
nian captivity period), while Genesis 2 is a "J" narrative from the
ninth century b.c. Basically, the arguments in support of this view¬
point are twofold. (1) It is claimed that the two creation stories show
evidence of different styles of writing. (2) It is argued that the ac¬
counts conflict in that they reflect strangely divergent concepts
of deity and a mismatched order of creation. I would like to examine
these assertions.

Stylistic Variation

Professor Kenneth Kitchen of the University of Liverpool has
suggested that "stylistic differences are meaningless" (1966, p. 118).
Such differences may as much indicate a variance in the subject
addressed as the suggestion of multiple authors. On the basis of
archaeological evidence. Kitchen has shown that the "stylistic" the-

* For further discussion and refutation of the Documentary Hypothesis, see: J ackson,
1990a: McDowell, 1999,

153

Genesis 1-11:
Mythical or Historical?

ory simply is not credible. For example, a biographical inscription
of U ni, an important Egyptian official who lived about 2400 b.c.,
reflects at least four different styles, yet no one denies the singu¬
larity of its authorship (1966, p. 125).

The plural authorship of the "creation accounts" is supposed
to be indicated by the use of two names for deity in these sections.
"God" (Elohim) is employed in Genesis 1, whereas "J ehovah" (Yah-
weh) is found in 2:4ff. In response it may be observed, first, that
solid biblical research has shown the use of different appellations
for deity to reflect possibly a purposeful theological emphasis.
For example, Elohim, which suggests "strength,” exalts God as the
mighty C reator. Y ahweh is the name that expresses the essential
moral and spiritual nature of deity, particularly in terms of H is re¬
lationship to the nation of Israel (see Stone, 1944, p. 17).

Second, the multiple employment of titles was common in the
literature of antiquity as a device of literary variety. Archaeological
discoveries have illustrated this point quite amply. Consider, as an
example. Genesis 28:13 where the Lord spoke to J acob and re¬
marked: "I amj ehovah (Y ahweh), theGod (Elohim)of Abraham,
the God (Elohim) of Isaac...." Would anyone argue for the multi¬
ple authorship of this single sentence upon the basis of the use of
two H ebrew names for the C reator? H ardly. 0 ne scholar pointedly
observed:

T 0 conclude that differences in style or vocabulary unmis¬
takably indicate different authors is invalid for any body of
literature. It is well known that a single author may vary his
style and select vocabulary to fit the themes he is developing
and the people he is addressing. It goes without saying that
a young graduate student's love letter will vary significantly
in vocabulary and style from his research paper (Davis, 1975,
p. 23).

It must be concluded that arguments for "two creation accounts"
in Genesis, based upon a subjective view of "style," are both spec¬
ulative and unconvincing.

154

Genesis 1-11:
Mythical or Historical?

So-Called Contradictions

As I mentioned earlier, the alleged discrepancies between chap¬
ters 1 and 2 involve an imagined difference in the perception of God
on the part of the hypothetical "authors,” and the alleged contra¬
dictory order of events mentioned in the respective records.

F irst, it is supposed that in G enesis 1 the C reator is a transcen¬
dent Being, majestically and distantly bringing the creation into ex¬
istence. In Genesis 2, however, H e is characterized by naive anthro¬
pomorphisms (human terminology applied to deity) that imply an
inferior status. For example, in Genesis 2 the writer says that] eho-
vah "formed," "breathed," "planted," etc. (vss. 7-8).

W hile it is true that such expressions are found in chapter 2, what
many critics have failed to observe and acknowledge is that anthro¬
pomorphic terminology also is employed in G enesis 1 :l-2:4 where
God "called," "saw," "rested," etc. (1:8,12; 2:1). There is no validity
whatsoever to this argument, and thus one should not be surprised
that various scholars have labeled it "illusory" in nature (e.g.. Kitch¬
en, 1966, p. 118).

Second, as indicated above, some reversed language order, as
seen in the two chapters, also is supposed to demonstrate conflict¬
ing creation accounts. The well-known theological liberal, E.A. Speis-
er, observed for example: "The first account starts out with the cre¬
ation of'heaven and earth' (1:1). The present narrative begins with
the making of 'earth and heaven' (2:4b)." Speiser then went to
great lengths to emphasize that in the first record heavenly activity
was in focus, while in the latter account man became the center of
interest. H ethen concluded: "This far-reaching divergence in basic
philosophy would alone be sufficient to warn the reader that two
separate sources appear to be involved, one heaven-centered and
the other earth-centered" (1964, pp. 18-19).

This particular argument for a dual authorship of Genesis 1 and
2 is similarly unconvincing. Note Genesis 2:4. "These are the gen¬
erations of the heavens and the earth when they were created.

155

Genesis 1-11:
Mythical or Historical?

in the day that J ehovah God made earth and heaven.” In this
one verse there is contained the heaven/ earth and earth/ heaven
motif. Does this mean that two people must have written this one
sentence? Even the Bible's most liberal and outspoken critics do not
so contend!

Third, the claim is made that in chapter 1 man is represented as
having been made "in the image of God” (27), yet in chapter 2, he
merely is "formed...of the dust of the ground” (7), thus suggesting
a distinct contrast. The point of comparison, however, is too lim¬
ited, hence unfair. As Professor J ohn Sailhamer remarked:

...we should not overlook the fact that the topic of the "cre¬
ation of man" In chapter 2 Is not limited merely to v. 7. In fact,
the topic of the creation of the man and the woman Is the fo¬
cus of the whole of chapter 2. What the author had stated as
a simple fact In chapter 1 (man, male and female, was cre¬
ated In God's likeness) Is explained and developed through¬
out the narrative of chapter 2. We cannot contrast the depic¬
tion of the creation of man In chapter 1 with only one verse
In chapter 2: we must compare the whole of the chapter
(1990, 2:40-41, parenthetical Item In orig.).

Fourth, Genesis 1 and 2 are said to contradict each other in the
relative creation-order of plants and man. In chapter 1, critics argue,
plants were created on the third day of the initial week (vss. 11-12)
and man was made on the sixth day (vss. 26ff.), whereas in chap¬
ter 2 the plants and herbs seem not to appear until after the for¬
mation of man (vss. 5ff.). But the problem exists only in the mind of
the critic. There are possible ways by which to resolve the alleged
difficulty.

Some have suggested that in Genesis 1 the original creation of
the botanical world is in view, while in Genesis 2 the emphasis is up¬
on the fact that plant reproduction had not commenced, since
as yet there was neither sufficient moisture nor a cultivator of the
ground—factors that later were remedied in verses 6-7 (see J acobus,
1864, 1:96).

156

Genesis 1-11:
Mythical or Historical?

Others agree that entirely different matters are in view in these
respective accounts. In Genesis 1:11-12 vegetation in general is
under consideration, but in Genesis 2:5ff. the writer is discussing the
specific sort of vegetation that requires human cultivation. B rowne ob¬
served:

The words rendered plant, field, and grew, never occur in
the first chapter: they are terms expressive of the produce of
iabour and cuitivation; so thatthe historian evidentiy means
that no cuitivated iand and no vegetabies fit for the use of man
were yet in existence on the earth (1981,1:39, emp. inorig.).

Another view is that Genesis 2:5 does not refer to the condi¬
tion of the Earth at large; rather, the writer simply is discussing the
preparation of the beautiful garden in which man was to live (Young,
1964, p. 61). In any event, the point needs to be stressed that when¬
ever there is the possibility of legitimate reconciliation be¬
tween passages that superficially appear to conflict, no con¬
tradiction can be charged.*

Fifth, it is argued that Genesis 1 represents animals as existing
before man (24-26), yet Genesis 2 has Adam created before the
animals are formed (19). The text of Genesis 2:19 merely suggests
that the animals were formed before being brought to man; it says
nothing about the relative origins of man and beast in terms of spe¬
cific chronology. Critics are reading something into the text that sim¬
ply is not there. William Green pointed out that when noted scholar
Franz Delitzsch (1813-1890), an early advocate of the Documen¬
tary H ypothesis, first authored his famous commentary on the book
of Genesis, he employed this argument as proof of a discrepancy
between G enesis 1 and 2. H owever, in the last edition of his work,
after he had matured and his knowledge had increased, he repudi¬
ated this quibble and argued for the harmony of 2:19 with chapter
1 (Green, 1979, p. 26).

For two excellent discussions of principles to be used when dealing with both biblical
difficulties and alleged contradictions, see: J ackson (1983, 3:25-28); J ackson and Brom-
ling (n.d.).

157

Genesis 1-11:
Mythical or Historical?

The Real Explanation

Are there differences in the narratives of Genesis 1 and 2? Y es,
there are. But mere differences do not necessarily imply contra¬
dictions, much less multiple authorship, The real question is this: Is
there a purpose to these variations? Y es, there is. Furthermore,
numerous factors militate against the notion that G enesis 1 and 2
are independent, contradictory accounts of the creation.

First, careful analysis reveals that there is deliberate purpose in
the individuality of these two sections of Scripture. In Genesis 1,
there is a broad outline of the events of the creation week, which
reaches its climax with the origin of mankind in the very image of
God. In Genesis 2, there is the special emphasis upon man, the di¬
vine preparation of his home, the formation of a suitable mate, etc.
Edward J. Y oung has provided a good statement of this matter.

There are different emphases in the two chapters...but the
reason for these is obvious. Chapter 1 continues the narrative
of creation until the climax, namely, man made in the image
and likeness of God. To prepare the way for the account of
the fall, chapter 2 gives certain added details about man's orig¬
inal condition, which would have been incongruous and out
of place in the grand, declarative march of chapter 1 (1960,
p. 53).

This type of procedure was common in the literary methodology of
antiquity. Gleason Archer has observed that the

technique of recapitulation was widely practiced in ancient
Semitic literature. The author would first introduce his ac¬
count with a short statement summarizing the whole trans¬
action, and then he would follow it up with a more detailed
and circumstantial account when dealing with matters of spe¬
cial importance (1964, p. 118).

These respective sections have a different literary motif. Genesis
1 is chronological, revealing the sequential events of the creation
week, whereas Genesis 2 is topical, with special concern for man
and his environment. [This procedure is not unknown elsewhere
in biblical literature. M atthew's account of the ministry of C hrist is
more topical, while Mark's record is more chronological.]

158

Genesis 1-11:
Mythical or Historical?

Second, there is clear evidence that G enesis 2 never was an in¬
dependent creation account. There are simply too many crucial el¬
ements missing for that to have been the case. For instance, there is
no mention in Genesis 2 of the creation of the Earth, Sun, Moon,
stars, etc. Noris there any referenceto the oceans or fish. Archer
has noted that there is not an origins record in the entire literature
collection of the ancient N ear East that omits discussing the cre¬
ation of the Sun, Moon, seas, etc. (1982, p. 69). Obviously, Genesis
2 is a sequel to chapter 1. The latter presupposes the former, and
is built upon it.

Even Howard) ohnston, while sympathetic to the Documentary
Hypothesis, was forced to concede:

The initial chapter [Genesis l]gives a general account of the
creation. The second chapter is generally declared by critics
to be a second account of the creation, but, considered in the
light of the general plan, that is notan accurate statement.
Evidently the purpose of this chapter is to show that out of
all the creation we have especially to do with man. Therefore
only so much of the general account is repeated as is involved
in a more detailed statement concerning the creation of man.

There is a marked difference of style in the two accounts, but
the record is consistent with the plan to narrow down the
story to man (1902, p. 90).

The following summary statement by Kitchen is worthy of notice.

It is often claimed that Genesis 1 and 2 contain two different
creation-narratives. In point of fact, however, the strictly com¬
plementary nature of the "two" accounts is plain enough:
Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series,
and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2 man is the
centre of interest and more specific details are given about
him and his setting. There is no incompatible duplication here
at all. F allure to recognize the complementary nature of the
subject-distinction between a skeleton outline of all creation
on the one hand, and the concentration in detail on man and
his immediate environment on the other, borders on obscu¬
rantism (1966, pp. 116-117, emp. in orig.).

159

Genesis 1-11:
Mythical or Historical?

One final, yet forceful, point needs to be made. In Matthew 19:
4-5, J esus combined quotations from Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.
H e declared: "H e who made them from the beginning made them
male and female [Genesis 1:26], and said, 'For this cause shall a
man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and
the two shall become one flesh' [2:24]." If the liberal viewpoint is
true, how very strange that Christ gave not the slightest hint that
the two accounts involved a multiple authorship and contradictory
material! 0 bviously, the Son of God did not endorse "higher criti¬
cism" with its esteemed Documentary Hypothesis.

When the texts of Genesis 1 and 2 considered carefully, one thing
is clear: An objective evaluation reveals neither discrepancies nor
dual authorship. Students of the Bible should not be disturbed by the
fanciful, plentiful, and ever-changing theories of liberal critics. The
Word of God was not written merely for the benefit of "scholars,"
but for the common person as well. The Scriptures assume that
the average man or woman is able to understand the message and
to know that the source is divine.

For many Bible believers today, the rebuke offered by the Lord
to the two on the road to Emmaus is applicable: "0 fools and slow
of heart to believe all thatthe prophets have spoken" (Luke 24:25).
J esus accused some of H is day of erring because "ye know not the
Scriptures, nor the power of God" (Mark 12:24). Thomas Whitelaw
summarized the issue well.

If we are to listen to many expositors of no mean authority,
we must believe that what seems so clearly defined in Gene¬
sis—as if very great pains had been taken that there should
be no possibility of mistake—is not the meaning of the text
atall.... A person who is nota H ebrew scholar can only stand
aside and admire the marvelous flexibility of a language which
admits of such diverse interpretations (n.d., 1:4).

If we are unwilling to accept Genesis 1-11 as historical, how,
then, will we be able to accept: (a) any biblical concept of man's
origin; (b) the unifying concept of both 0 Id and N ew Testaments

160

Genesis 1-11:
Mythical or Historical?

(i.e., the need for a coming Redeemer, which is based on infor¬
mation found in Genesis 3); (c) God's personally designed plan of
salvation; (d) the Sonship of Christ (since J esus so often testified to
the accuracy of the G enesis account); (e) the truthfulness of the 0 Id
and N ew Testament writers; and (f) the overall authority of the Scrip¬
tures as the inspired Word of God?

161

762

Chapter

The Bible and the Age of
the Earth—Time, Evolution,
and Biblical Chronology

I n the controversy over creation and evolution, it is a rare event
indeed to find something on which those in both camps agree
wholeheartedly. Generally speaking, the two world views are light-
years apart from start to finish. There is one thing, however on which
both creationists and evolutionists do agree: Evolution is impossi¬
ble if the Earth is young (with an age measured in thousands, not
billions, of years). R.L. Wysong addressed this point in his book, The
Creation-Evolution Controversy.

Both evolutionists and creationists believe evolution is an im¬
possibility if the universe is only a few thousand years old.

There probably is no statement that could be made on the
topicoforiginswhich would meet with so much agreement
from both sides. Setting aside the question of whether vast
timeiscompetentto propel evolution, wemustquery ifvast
time is indeed available (1976, p. 144).

It may be somewhat ironic that so much discussion has resulted
from something on which both sides seemingly agree, but it should

163

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—Time, Evolution, and
Biblical Chronology

not be at all surprising. Apart from the most basic issue of the contro¬
versy itself—i.e., whether creation or evolution is the correct view of
origins—the single most serious area of conflict between those who
accept the biblical account of creation and those who accept the the¬
ory of organic evolution (in whole or in part) is the chronological
framework of history—viz., the age of the Earth. And, of course, this
subject is of immense interest not only to those who promulgate
atheistic evolution, but to those who are sympathetic with certain
portions of that theory as well. While a young Earth/ U niverse pre¬
sents no problem at all for creationists who accept the biblical ac¬
count of origins at face value, it is the death knell to every variety of
the evolutionary scenario.

A simple, straightforward reading of the biblical record indicates
that the Cosmos was created in six days only a few thousand years
ago. Standing in stern opposition to that view is the suggestion of
atheistic evolutionists, theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists,
and so-called "old-Earth creationists” that the current age ofthe Uni¬
verse can be set at roughly 8-12 billion years, and that the Earth it¬
self is almost 5 billion years old. Further complicating matters is the
fact that the biblical record plainly indicates that living things were
placed on the newly created Earth even before the end ofthe six-
day creative process (e.g., plant life came on day three). The evolu¬
tionary scenario, however, postulates that primitive life evolved from
nonliving chemicals roughly 3.5-4,0 billion years ago, and that all
other life forms gradually developed during the alleged "geologic
ages” (with man arriving on the scene, in one form or another, ap¬
proximately 1-2 million years ago).

Even to a casual observer, it is apparent that the time difference
involved in the two models of origins is significant. M uch of the con¬
troversy today between creationists, atheistic evolutionists, theistic
evolutionists, progressive creationists, and old-Earth creationists cen¬
ters on the age of the Earth, The magnitude of the controversy is
multiplied by three factors. First, atheistic evolution itself is apodic-
tically impossible to defend if the Earth is young. Second, thecon-

164

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—Time, Evolution, and
Biblical Chronology

cepts mentioned above that are its "theistic cousins” likewise are
utterly impossible to defend if the B ibie is correct in its straightfor¬
ward teachings and obvious implications about the age of the Earth.
T bird, there is no possible compromise that will permit the old-Earth/
young-Earth scenarios to coexist; the gulf separating the biblical and
evolutionary views in this particular area simply is too large. As H en-
ry M orris correctly observed:

Thus the B ibiical chronology is about a million times shorter
than the evolutionary chronology. A million-fold mistake is no
small matter, and B ibiical scholars surely need to give primary
attention to resolving this tremendous discrepancy right at
the very foundation of our entire B ibiical cosmology. This is
not a peripheral issue that can be dismissed with some exe-
getical twist, but is central to the very integrity of scriptural
theology (1984, p. 115).

In the earlier quote from D r. Wysong, it was suggested that we must
"query if vast time is indeed available.” That is my intention here.
Indeed, a million-fold mistake is no small matter. Exactly how old
is the Earth according to God's Word?

THE IMPORTANCE OF TIME TO
EVOLUTIONISTS AND THOSE
SYMPATHETIC TO THEM

There is no doubt about the critical nature of time in the evolu¬
tionary scenario. Q notations to this effect from the available litera¬
ture could be multiplied many times over. For example, in his award¬
winning (and oft'-reproduced) article in Scientific American a num¬
ber of years ago, N obel laureate George Wald of H arvard U niver-
sity minced no words when he wrote:

T 0 make an organism demands the right substance in the
right proportions and in the right arrangement. We do not
think that anything more is needed—but that is problem
enough.... One has only to contemplate the magnitude of
this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of living
organisms is impossible. Y et here we are—as a result, I believe,
of spontaneous generation....

165

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—Time, Evolution, and
Biblical Chronology

In such a problem as the spontaneous generation of life, we
have no way of assessing probabilities beforehand, or even
of deciding what we mean by trial. The origin of a living orga¬
nism Is undoubtedly a step-wise phenomenon, each step with
Its own probability and Itsown conditions of trial. Ofone thing
we can be sure, however: whatever constitutes a trial, more
such trials occur the longer the Interval of time.

The Important point Is that since the origin of life belongs In
the category of "at-least-once" phenomena, time Is on Its side.

H owever Improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps
It Involves, given enough time, it will almost certainly hap¬
pen at least once. And for life as we know it, with its capa¬
bility for growth and reproduction, once may be enough.

Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which
we have to deal here is ofthe order of two billion years. What
we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is
meaningless here. Given so much time, the "impossible" be¬
comes possible, the possible becomes probable, and the prob¬
able virtually certain. One has only to wait; time itself
performs the miracles (1979, pp. 290,291,293-294,
emp. added).

Other well-known evolutionary scientists have echoed the same
sentiments. H arold Blum, writing in Time's Arrow and Evolution,
remarked: "The origin of life can be viewed properly only in the per¬
spective of an almost inconceivable extent of time" (1968, p. 151).
Leo Koch, in an article he authored for Scientific M onthly, com¬
mented that, given enough time, "...the highly improbable occurs
regularly, and indeed is inevitable” (1957, p. 250). Keosian went
on to observe: "The mechanists were not discouraged by the enor¬
mous span of time required for this chance event. They point out
that, given enough time, the most improbable event becomes a sta¬
tistical certainty” (1968, p. 10).

DOES TIME ITSELF "PERFORM MIRACLES"?

It is ironic that time—which evolution needs as its friend—has be¬
come its worst enemy. Why is this the case? There are two reasons.
First, time itself—contrary to Dr. Wald's wishful thinking—does not

166

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—Time, Evolution, and
Biblical Chronology

"perform miracles" and, in fact, is quite impotent. Second, time works
against ordered systems, in keeping with the Second Law of Ther¬
modynamics. These two points need to be examined.

A.I. Oparin, the Russian evolutionist credited with inventing the
phrase, "origin of life," and one of the first researchers in this area,
once stated that while there is much speculation on the origin of life
as a result of vast amounts of time, the actual documentation (what
he called "quantitative arguments") is conspicuously missing.

It is sometimes argued in speculative papers on the origin of
life that highly improbable events (such as the spontaneous
formation of a molecule of dna and a molecule of DNA-polym-
erase in the same region of space and at the same time) be¬
come virtually inevitable over the vast stretches of geological
time. No serious quantitative arguments, however, are given
in supportofsuch conclusions (1961, p. 31, parenthetical
comment in orig.).

While Oparin's comments were made as long ago as 1961, the same
assessment prevails today. The origin of life, viewed from a purely
mechanistic standpoint, remains as much a mystery as it was in D r.
Oparin's time—and for good reason. The simple fact is that, in na¬
ture, time works against the spontaneous generation of liv¬
ing organisms. Dr. Wald addressed this point, and, in fact, called
it "the most stubborn problem that confronts us," when he wrote:

In the vast majority of processes in which we are interested
the point of equilibrium lies far over toward the side of dis¬
solution. That is to say, spontaneous dissolution is much
more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than
spontaneous synthesis.... The situation we must face is that
of patient Penelope waiting for 0 dysseus, yet much worse;
each night she undid the weaving of the preceding day, but
here a night could readily undo the work of a year or a cen¬
tury (1955, p. 17, emp. added).

In nature, things don't "automatically" go toward self-organi¬
zation. In fact, Wald admitted, left to themselves, in nature they go
toward spontaneous dissolution, which is the process not of as¬
sembling, but of degrading. Wald even went so far as to complain

167

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—Time, Evolution, and
Biblical Chronology

that what "nature” could have taken a year, or a century, to ac¬
complish (if ever) could be undone in an instant, For every step for¬
ward, there are a dozen (or a hundred, or a thousand) backwards.
And the addition of more time merely makes the problem worse.

There are other factors to be considered as well, however. Whit¬
comb has elucidated one of them.

Time is the deadliest enemy ofthetheory of evolution. Why?
Because according to the second law of thermodynamics and
the entropy principle, any ordered system through the pass¬
ing of time will disintegrate and become more and more dis¬
ordered. H igh level energy will dissipate into low level energy,
so that its force and power for useful work can never be re¬
gained. Take, for example, the plight of a young man trying
to lift himself up into the air by his shoestrings. H ow desper¬
ately wrong would be the challenge that an evolutionary sci¬
entist would give to this young man—that is, to keep on try¬
ing and not give up, because given enough time he could
make it! Of course, this illustration is silly, but the principle
remains: any effort to contradict basic laws of the universe
can only be frustrated by the addition of time. The young man
after a period of time would lose what energy he had and col¬
lapse to the floor; given a hundred and fifty years, all of his
efforts would cease by the inexorable experience of death,
and nothing would remain as an evidence of his experiment
but dry bones and dust. This is the inevitable effect of time up¬
on any ordered system in the universe as understood in this
world today (1973a, 2:61-62).

Wysong has written in agreement.

Similarly, it is conceivable that wind might blow a pile of tooth¬
picks dumped from a picnic table into an arrangement re¬
sembling a model airplane. Given enough time, it could hap¬
pen. But if that freak event does happen, would it remain if
still subject to time and gale winds? Would it ever complex¬
ify? Isn't time not only the creator, but more efficiently the
enemy of the freak event? Will time not surely destroy the
order fortuitously created? The creationist asks: "H ow then
can time be actually cited as the very cause of the almost in¬
finite complexity of life?..."

168

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—Time, Evolution, and
Biblical Chronology

The creationist argues that time is only a measure of natural
decay. Time does not complexify, it does not originate or build
up anything without a predesigned "motor," rather, it dissi¬
pates, degenerates, melts, dissolves and removes available
energy (1976, pp. 139,141,142).

Thus, time—which the evolutionist took to be his best friend—has
become his worst enemy.

A billion years with no creative power equals less than noth¬
ing. That is the formula for the failure of the god of evolution.

But the formula for creationism is this: infinite power with al¬
most no duration oftime equals a fantastic creation. In other
words, the magnitude and glory and complexity of creation
is not a function oftime, butofthe power of God, who spoke
it into existenceby H isWord. God's Word tells us that in six
days H e created the heavens, the Earth, the seas, and all that
in them is (Whitcomb, 1973a, 2:65).

This expresses the creationist's viewpoint perfectly. Time cannot,
and does not, "perform miracles.” That is a process best left to the
Creator.

THE AGE OF THE EARTH-"WAIT AND SEE”

As I begin this investigation into the age of the Earth, I first would
like to define the scope of the present inquiry, It is not my intention
here to examine and refute the scientific evidences that allegedly es¬
tablish an ancient Earth. There already are a number of books avail¬
able that provide such information (see for example: H enry M orris,
1974a,1989; Wysong; 1976, Ackerman, 1986; Morris and Park¬
er, 1987; Kautz, 1988;J ackson, 1989; J ohn Morris, 1994; Wood-
morappe, 1999). The reader interested in a discussion of the scien¬
tific aspects of this controversy is referred to these works, or others
like them.

0 bviously, then, I am not writing with the atheistic evolutionist
in mind. I am well aware that my arguments would carry no weight
whatsoever with the person who falls into that category. Rather,
this discussion is intended for those who: (a) believe in the God of

169

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—Time, Evolution, and
Biblical Chronology

the B ibie; (b) claim to accept the B ibie as H is inspired, authoritative
Word; and (c) are convinced that what God has said can be under¬
stood. For such a person, the Bible is the final authority on any sub¬
ject that it addresses. Edward]. Y oung expressed this point when
he wrote:

It is of course true that the B ibie is not a textbook of science,
but all too often, it would seem, this fact is made a pretext for
treating lightly thecontentofGenesisone. Inasmuch as the
B ibie is the Word of God, whenever it speaks on any subject,
whatever that subject may be, it is accurate in what it says
(1964, p. 43).

The question then becomes: "Does the Bible speak on the sub¬
ject of the age of the Earth?" Y es, it does. B ut before we delve into
what it says, there are two popular, prevailing attitudes that need
to be discussed.

First, I acknowledge that some religionists regard this as a ques¬
tion that simply cannot be answered at present. We are urged to
"withhold judgment," "wait and see," or "reserve judgment."

j ack Wood Sears, former chairman of the biology department
at FI arding U niversity, wrote for example:

When conflicts do occur, the part of wisdom is to withhold
judgment until the facts are all in. Forexample, there is diffi¬
culty with the age of life on the earth. Science, as I indicated
earlier, has seemed to indicate that the life has been here much
longer than we have generally interpreted the Bible to indi¬
cate. FI owever, scientific determination of the ages of geo¬
logical strata is not absolute and is subject to much difficulty
and uncertainty. The Bible, as we have shown, does not date
creation, and the intimations it seems to present may
not be properly understood. Since I hold science to be a val¬
id approach to reality, and since I have concluded upon much
and sufficient evidence, that the Bible is inspired and there¬
fore true, the only rational recourse, it seems to me, is to with¬
hold judgment about a seeming contradiction. Wait and see
(1969, p. 97, emp. added).

Four years later, j. Frank Cassel wrote in a similar vein:

170

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—Time, Evolution, and
Biblical Chronology

The thoughtful person respects present knowledge In both
areas (science and Biblical research) and keeps searching
for new Information and Insight. In the meantime he must re¬
serve judgment, saying simply "1 don't know where the
proper synthesis lies." The tension remains as the search con¬
tinues (1973, pp. 251-252, emp. added, parenthetical Item
In orig.).

While at first glance such suggestions may appear to be praise¬
worthy and laudable, I would like to suggest that they are nothing
but a carefully planned ruse. Authors of such sentiments no doubt
want others to adhere to their advice, but they themselves have
absolutely no intention of doing so.

Cassel, for example, has written often about the accuracy of the
so-called geologic timetable, and is a well-known apologist for the
old-Earth scenario. Further, in November of 1983 I personally de¬
bated Dr. Sears on the topic of the age of the Earth.* I confidently
affirmed the proposition that the B ibie does not allow for an an¬
cient Earth; Dr. Sears affirmed the proposition that it does. The de¬
bate occurred some 14 years after Dr. Sears penned his "wait and
see” statement. H ad he discovered additional information during
those years that no longer made it necessary to wait and see? A p-
parently not, since during the debate he told the audience that he was
"still waiting” (an exact quote from the transcript) for information
that would allow him to make a decision regarding the age of the
Earth. If he were still waiting, why, then, would he be willing to en¬
gage in a public debate to defend the idea that the B ibIe allows for an
ancient Earth? Where is the consistency in such a position?

In reality, what these writers mean when they claim that "we"
should "wait and see," or that "we" should "reserve judgment," is that
those who bel ieve i n a young Earth should wait and see or re¬
serve judgment. In the meantime, they will continue to advocate pub¬
licly their position that an ancient Earth is wholly consistent with
the biblical record.

* The debate is available in printed, audio, and video formats. The printed manuscripts
of the debate are in McClish (1983), pp. 405-434. Audio and video tapes are avail¬
able from the offices of Apologetics Press.

171

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—Time, Evolution, and
Biblical Chronology

Second, there are some in the religious community who suggest
that the Bible is conspicuously silent on the age of the Earth. It is
not uncommon to hear statements suggesting that since the B ibie
does not address this matter, a person is free to believe whatever
he or she wishes in this regard. Typical of such a mind-set are the
following statements by Donald England and J ohn Clayton.

However, nowhere does a Biblical writer give us an age for
earth or an age for life on earth.... Inasmuch as Scripture does
not state how old the earth is or how long life has existed on
earth, one is free to accept, if hewishes, theconclusionsofsci-
ence (England, 1983, pp. 155-156).

Genesis 1:1 is an undated verse. N o time element is given and
no details of what the Earth looked like are included. It could
have taken place in no time at all, or God may have used
eons of time to accomplish his objectives (Clayton, 1976b,
pp. 147-148).

This, of course, is but another ruse. Beware when a writer or
speaker suggests that the B ibIe is "silent" on the topic of the age of
the Earth, or that a person is free to accept the varied "conclusions
of science." What those who make such statements really mean
is that they are free to accept the conclusions, not of science, but of
uniformitarian geology, and in so doing to defend the same old-
Earth position as their evolutionist colleagues. Both England and
Clayton, for example, are on record as defending an ancient Earth
(see: England, 1972, pp. 103-106; Clayton as documented in] ack-
son and Thompson, 1992, pp. 99-110).

CHRONOLOGY AND THE BIBLE

T he truth of the matter is that the B ibie, as a book grounded in
history, is filled with chronological data that may be used to estab¬
lish a relative age for the Earth. It is not "silent" on this topic, and
thus there is no need to "wait and see" or to "reserve judgment."
Professor Edwin Thiele, the man who unlocked much of the mys¬
tery of 0 Id Testament chronology, declared:

172

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—Time, Evolution, and
Biblical Chronology

We know that God regards chronology as important, for
He has put so much of it into H is Word. We find chronology
not only in the historical books of the Bible, but also in the
prophetic books, in the Gospels, and in the writings of Paul
(1977, p. 7).

The Bible, for example, provides impressive chronological data
from Adam to Solomon. Combining information from the Assyrian
Eponym Lists and the Black Obelisk, the death of Ahab has been
determined to be 853-852 b.c. (Packer, etal., 1980, p. 48), and
therefore the reign of Solomon (some forty years, 1 Kings 11:42) can
be dated at 971-931 b.c. (Merrill, 1978, p. 97; Packer, etal., 1980,
p. 50; Brantley, 1993a, 13:83). According to 1 Kings 6:1,480 years
before Solomon's fourth year of reign (967-966 b.c.), Moses brought
the Israelites out of Egypt. The date of the Exodus is 1446/1445
B.c. (Unger, 1973, pp. 140-152; Archer, 1970, pp. 212-222; Pack¬
er, etal., 1980, p. 51;Jackson, 1981, 1:38; 1990b, 10:17).

T 0 this date is added the years of sojourn in Egypt (430 years.
Exodus 12:40),* thereby producing the date of 1876 b .c. as the year
j acob wentto Egypt (Packer, etal., 1980, p. 50). Interestingly, the
Bible records Pharaoh's query of] acob's age (and j acob's answer
—130 years)in Genesis 47:9. This would make the year of] acob's
birth 2006 b.c. (Genesis 25:26). Abraham was 100 years old when

* The length of the Israelites' sojourn in Egypt is a matter of some controversy. There
are two major views. The first view suggests that the Israeiites actual ly I ived in Egypt
for 430 years [see, for example: Archer (1994), pp, 205-212; Keil and Delitzsch (1974),
2:29; Kitchen, (1966), pp. 53-56; and Unger 1954), pp. 106,150], The second view
suggests that the time period of "the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in
Egypt430 years” (Exodus 12:40-41; cf. Galatians 3:17) begins with the call of
Abraham and God's promise to him (Genesis 12:1-3) and ends with the Exodus
[see, for example: Barnes (n.d., p. 121; Clarke (n.d.), 1:358; Henry (n.d.), 1:322; Mauro
(n.d.), pp. 31-32; Rohl (1995), pp. 329- 332; and Thiele (1963), pp. 166-167]. Plac¬
ing the time that the Israelites actually lived in Egypt as 215 years rather than 430
years has no impact on thepoint I am making in this section regarding biblicai chro-
noiogy, since it actually would decrease the number of years in the chronoiogy rath¬
er than increase it, which is why I intentionally chose to employ the larger of the two
figures (430 years) in the above discussion. Such a usage on my part avoids the crit¬
ics' potential charge of "artificially reducing" the chronoiogy via use of the 215-year
figure.

173

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—Time, Evolution, and
Biblical Chronology

he begat Isaac, giving the date of 2166 b.c. for Abraham's birth
(Genesis21:5; Packer, etal., 1980, p. 54), The chronology from
Abraham to Adam is recorded very carefully in two separate ge¬
nealogical tables—Genesis 5 and 11. According to Genesis 12:4,
Abraham was 75 when he left H aran, presumably after Terah died
at 205 years; thus, Abraham was born when Terah was 130 years
old, albeit he is mentioned first by importance when Terah started
having sons at the age of 70 (G enesis 11:2 7; 12:4; Acts 7:4; see B ee-
chick, 1997, p, 100, note #1).

H aving established the birth date of Abraham at 2166 b.c. (Ar¬
cher, 1970, pp. 203-204), it is possible to work from the time of
Adam's creation to Abraham in order to discern the chronology of
"the beginning.” The time from the creation of Adam to Seth was
130 years (Genesis 5:3), the time from Adam to Noah was 1056
years (Packer, etal., 1980, pp. 56-57), and the time from Noah's
birth to the Flood was 600 years (Genesis 7:6), or 1656 a.a. (Af¬
ter Adam), It appears that Shem was about 100 years old at the
time of the Flood (Genesis 5:32; 11:10), and begatArphaxad two
years after the Flood (the Earth was not dry for more than a year;
cf. Genesis 7:11 with 8:14; see also Genesis 11:10 and Beechick,
1997, p, 100, note #2) in approximately 1659 a.a.

Arphaxad begat Salah in his 35th year; however, Luke 3:36 com¬
plements the chronological table of Genesis 11 with the insertion of
Cainan between Arphaxad and Salah, which indicates that likely
Arphaxad was the father of Cainan, Proceeding forward, one ob¬
serves that Terah was born in 1879 a.a. and bore Abraham 130
years later (in 2009 a.a.). Simple arithmetic then—2166 b.c. ad¬
ded to 2009 A.A. —would place the date of the Creation at approxi¬
mately 4175 B.c. Thus, the Flood would have occurred around
2519 B.c.

Numerous objections have been leveled at the literal and con¬
secutive chronological interpretation of Scripture. For example,
some have suggested that the tables of Genesis 5 and 11 are nei¬
ther literal nor consecutive. Y et five of the patriarchs clearly were

174

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—Time, Evolution, and
Biblical Chronology

the literal fathers of their respective sons: Adam named Seth (Gen-
esis4:25), Seth named Enos(4:26), Lamech named Noah (5:29),
Noah's literal, consecutive sons were Shem, H am, and J apheth
(cf. 5:32 with 9:18), and Terah fathered Abraham directly (11:27,
31),

J ude's record in the N ew Testament counts Enoch as "the sev¬
enth from Adam" (1:14), thereby acknowledging the genealogical
tables as both literal and consecutive. M oreover, how better could
M OSes have expressed a literal and consecutive genealogy than by
using the terms "lived...and begat...begat...after he begat...all the
days...and he died"? Without question, Moses noted that the first
three individuals (Adam, Seth, and Enos) were consecutive, and
J ude stated by inspiration that the first seven (to Enoch) were con¬
secutive. Enoch's son, Methuselah, died the year of the Flood, and
so by three simplestepsthechronologyof Adam to Noah can be
proven to be both literal and consecutive, producing a trustworthy
biblical chronology/genealogy.

There also have been those who have objected to the sugges¬
tion that God actually would be concerned with providing accu¬
rate, trustworthy information on the age of the Earth and humanity
in the first place. T heir point is that the B ibie was intended to pro¬
vide spiritual, notchronological, insight. But the numerous chrono¬
logical tables permeating the B ibIe prove that theirs is a baseless
objection, God, it seems, was very concerned about giving man
exact chronological data and, in fact, was so concerned that H e pro¬
vided a precise knowledge of the period back to Abraham, plus two
tables—with ages—from Abraham to Adam, The ancient) ewish his¬
torians (e.g., 1 Chronicles l:l-27)and the New Testament writers
(e.g., Luke 3:34-48) understood the tables of Genesis 5 and 11 to
be literal and consecutive. The B ibie explains quite explicitly that
God created the Sun and Moon as timekeepers (Genesis l:16)for
Adam and his descendants (notice how Noah logged the beginning
and the ending of the Flood using these timekeepers. Genesis 7:11;
8:14).

175

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—Time, Evolution, and
Biblical Chronology

Still others have suggested that the two tables somehow are sym¬
bolic. But the use (or even repetitive use) of a "unique” number does
not necessitate a symbolical interpretation. Special numbers (such
as 7,10,12,40, etc.) employed in Scripture may be understood as
literal despite the frequency of their use. Are there not three I iteral
members of the Godhead? Did notSceva have seven literal sons?
Werethere not ten literal commandments? Were there nottwelve
literal apostles? Was Christ's fast in the wilderness not forty lit¬
eral days? Moreover, those who study history routinely recognize
that it abounds with numerical "coincidences.” To say that the ta¬
bles of Genesis 5 and 11 are "symbolic” of long periods of time
flies in the face of the remainder of the biblical record.

Those who believe that the Bible is unconcerned with chro¬
nology would do well to spend time studying the lineages of the
H ebrew kings in the 0 Id Testament, J amesJ ordan explained why.

Chronology is of concern to the writers of the Bible. From
this perspective we should be surprised if the Bible did not
include chronological data regarding the period from C re-
ation to Abraham, especially since such data can now be ob¬
tained from no other source. T hat chronology is of concern
to the Bible (and to itsAuthor) can also be seen from theof-
ten difficult and confusing chronology of the Kings of Israel.

Thus, we find that it is the intention of the Bible to provide
us with chronology from Abraham to the Exile. Some of that
chronology is given in summary statements...but some is al¬
so given interspersed in the histories of the Kings. Is it there¬
fore surprising or unreasonable that some should be given
along with genealogies as well? (1979/ 1980,2:21, emp. and
parenthetical item in orig.).

While it is true that genealogies (and chronologies) serve various
functions in Scripture, one of their main purposes is to show the
historical connection of great men to the unfolding of J ehovah's re¬
demptive plan. These lists, therefore, are a link from the earliest days
of humanity to the completion of God's salvation system. In order
to have any evidential value, they must be substantially com¬
plete.

176

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—Time, Evolution, and
Biblical Chronology

For example, the inspired writer of Hebrews, in contending for
the heavenly nature of C hrist's priesthood, argued that the Savior
could not have functioned as a priest while living upon the Earth
since God had in place a levitical priesthood to accomplish that
need (H ebrews 8:4). J esus did not qualify for the levitical priesthood
because "it is evident that our Lord hath sprung out of J udah” (H e-
brews 7:14, emp, added). H ow could it have been "evident" that
J esus Christ was from the tribe of J udah—unless there were ac¬
curate genealogical records by which such a statement could
be verified? The writer of H ebrews based his argument on the fact
that the various readers of his epistle would not be able to dispute
the ancestry of C hrist due to the reliable nature of the J ewish doc¬
umentation available—i.e., the genealogies.

It has been argued that secular history is considerably older than
4000 B.c. But ponder this. When the studies of various Egyptolo¬
gists are examined, no two provide the same dates for the 0 Id K ing-
dom (lll-VI Dynasties). Breasted (1912) gave the date as 2980-
2475 B.C., Baikie (1929)dated the period as being 3190-2631 b.c..
White (1970) suggested 2778-2300 b.c., Aling (1981) dated it at
2800-2200 B.C., and Rohl (1995) offered 2650-2152 b.c. With
such variability in the last "sure” period of Egypt's history, how can
dogmatism prevail for the predynastic period? Scientists and his¬
torians influence C hristendom with their "established limits" of his¬
tory. And theologians influence Christianity with evolution-based
bias as well. For instance, Gleason Archer has stated:

The problems attending this method of computation are com¬
pounded by the quite conclusive archaeological evidence that
Egyptian Dynasty I went back to 3100 B.c., with a long pe
riod of divided kingdoms in the N He valley before that. These
could hardly have arisen until long after the Flood had oc¬
curred and the human race had multiplied considerably (cf.
Genesis 10). Ittherefore seems necessary to interpretthefig-
ures of Genesis 5 and 11 differently, especially in view of the
gaps in other biblical genealogical tables (1979, 1:361).

Obviously Archer is completely willing to override Scripture with the
"scientific” message of archaeology. This mind-set—which requires

177

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—Time, Evolution, and
Biblical Chronology

the Bible to submit to science (geology, paleontology, archaeology,
anthropology, etc.)—undermines the authority of the Word of God.
In one prominent example from a few years back, the then-editor of
Christianity Today stated:

But one fact is clear: the genealogies of Genesis will not per¬
mit us to set any exact limit on the age of man. 0 f that we must
remain ignorantunlessthesciencesof geology and his¬
torical anthropologygive us data from which we may
draw tentative scientific conclusions (Kantzer, 1982,
p. 25, emp. added).

The fact of the matter is that both scientists and theologians
should be concerned with fitting the scientific data to the truth—
God's Word—not with molding God's Word to fit current scientific
theories (which, in a few short years may change—e.g., in C hades
Darwin's day, the Earth had been "proven" scientifically to be 20
million years old, while today it has been "proven" scientifically to
be 4.6 billion years old).

Furthermore, archaeologists often use speculative (and inaccu¬
rate) techniques such as radiocarbon dating, dendrochronology (tree¬
ring analysis), and pottery dating schemes. Y et each of these meth¬
ods is beset with serious flaws, not the least of which are the basic
assumptions upon which they are constructed. In two timely, well-
researched articles ("Dating in Archaeology: Radiocarbon & Tree-
Ring Dating," and "Dating in Archaeology: Challenges to Biblical
Credibility”), Trevor Major (1993,13:74-77)and Garry Brantley
(1993a, 13:81-85) explained the workings of these various meth¬
ods and exposed the faulty assumptions upon which each is based.
After listing and discussing five important problem areas associated
with carbon-14 dating, and after discussing the problems associ¬
ated with obtaining accurate tree-ring growth rates, M ajor wrote:

Radiocarbon dating assumes that the carbon-12/ carbon-14
ratio has stayed the same for at least the last hundred thou¬
sand years or so. H owever, the difference between production
and decay rates, and the systematic discrepancy between ra¬
diocarbon and tree-ring dates, refute this assumption.... Simi-

178

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—Time, Evolution, and
Biblical Chronology

larly, we should not accept the claims for dendrochronology
at face value. Bristlecones may add more than one growth
ring per year, and the "art" of cross dating living and dead
trees may be a considerable source of error. Both radiocar¬
bon dating and dendrochronology face technical problems,
and are loaded with old Earth ideas. They assume that nature
works today the same as it has worked for millions of years,
yet the facts do not support this contention. Neither meth¬
od should give us cause to abandon the facts of bib¬
lical history (1993, 13:77, emp. added).

In his article, Brantley addressed the problems associated with
subjectivism in archaeological chronology in general, and pottery
dating in particular. He then drew the following conclusions:

...we must recognize that archaeological evidence is fragmen¬
tary and, therefore, greatly limited. Despite the amount of
potsherds, bones, ornaments, or tools collected from a given
site, the evidence reflects only a paltry fraction of what ex¬
isted in antiquity (Brandfon, 1988,14[1]:54). Unearthed data
often are insufficient, inconclusive, and subject to biased in¬
terpretation....

...the paucity of archaeological evidence provides fertile soil
for imaginative—and often contradictory—conclusions. We
must not overlook the matter of subjectivity in interpretations.
...Finally, archaeology is an imprecise science, and
should not serve as the judge of biblical historicity.

The pottery dating scheme, for example, has proved to be
most helpful in determining relative dates in a tell. But, at best,
pottery can place one only within the "chronological ball park."
j ohn Laughlin, a seasoned archaeologist, recognized the im¬
portance of potsherds in dating strata, but offered two warn¬
ings: (1) a standard pottery type might have had many vari¬
ants: and (2) similar ceramic types might not date to the same
era—some types may have survived longer than others, and
different manufacturing techniques and styles might have
been introduced at different times in different locales. Further,
he mentioned the fact of subjectivity in determining pottery:

"...in addition to its observable traits, pottery has a 'feel' to
it" (1992,18[5]:72). Therefore, we must recognize ar¬
chaeology for what it is—an inexact science with the
innate capacity for mistakes (1993a, 13:84-85, emp. ad¬
ded).

179

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—Time, Evolution, and
Biblical Chronology

Wayne J ackson accurately summarized the importance of biblical
chronology when he wrote:

The purpose of biblical chronology is to determine the cor¬
rect dates of events and persons recorded in the B ibie as ac¬
curately as possible, in order that we may better understand
their role in the great plan ofj ehovah.... The Bible is the in¬
spired Word of God (II Tim. 3:16). Its testimony is, there¬
fore, always reliable. Whenever it speaks with reference to
chronological matters, one may be sure that it is right! No
chronology is thus to be trusted which contradicts plain his¬
torical/ chronological data in the sacred text, or which re¬
quires a manipulation of factual Bible information (such as
is frequently done by compromisers who have been romanced
by the chronological absurdities of the theory of evolution)
[1981, 1:37, emp. and parenthetical comment in orig.].

Was chronology of importance to the biblical writers? Indeed it
was. Does the Bible speak, then, in any sense, concerning the age
of the Earth or the age of humanity on the Earth? Indeed it does. I
am not suggesting, of course, that one can settle on an exact date
for the age of the Earth (asdidj ohn Lightfoot [1602-1675], the
famed H ebraist and vice-chancellor of C ambridge U niversity who
taught that creation occurred the week of October 18 to 24, 4004
B.C., and that Adam and Eve were created on October 23 at 9:00
A.M., forty-fifth meridian time [see Ramm, 1954, p. 121]).

I do contend, however, that the Bible gives a chronological frame¬
work that establishes a relative age for the Earth—an age confined
to a span of only a few thousand years. The chapters that follow pre¬
sent the evidence to support such a conclusion.

180

Chapter 8

' >

The Bible and the Age of
the Earth—

The Day-Age Theory

D .D. Riegle, in his book, Creation or Evolution?, observed:
"It is amazing that men will accept long, complicated, imag¬
inative theories and reject the truth given to M oses by the C reator
H imself" (1962, p, 24), Some of the theories being discussed in
this book are indeed "long, complicated, and imaginative." Why is
this the case? Even proponents of the old-Earth view admit that a
simple, straightforward reading of the biblical text "seems to pre¬
sent" a young Earth, j ack Wood Sears, quoted earlier, has admit¬
ted concerning the biblical record that "the intimations it seems to
present may not be properly understood" (1969, p. 97, emp, ad¬
ded).

These "intimations" of a young Earth have not escaped those
who opt for an old Earth. In 1972, Donald England wrote in A Chris¬
tian View of Origins:

181

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Day-Age Theory

But why do some people insist that the earth is relatively re¬
cent in origin? First, I feel that it is because one gets the gen¬
eral impression from the Bible that the earth is young.

...It is true that B ibiical chronology leaves one with the gen¬
eral impression of a relatively recent origin for man... (p. 109,
emp. added).

Eleven years later, when Dr. England authored his book, A Scien¬
tist Examines Faith and Evidence, apparently his views had not
changed.

A reading of the first few chapters of Genesis leaves one
with the very definite general impression that life has
existed on earth for, at the most, a few thousand years
(1983, p. 155, emp. added).

Both Sears and England admit that the Bible "intimates” a young
Earth, and that a reading of the first chapters of Genesis "leaves
one with the general impression” of a youthful planet. Do these two
men then accept a young Earth? They do not. The question is: Why?
If a simple, plain, straightforward reading of the biblical text indi¬
cates a young Earth, what reason(s) do they give for not accepting
whatthe Bible says? Here is Dr. England's 1983 quotation again,
but this time reproduced with his introductory and concluding re¬
marks:

Third, it is not recommended that one should allow a general
impression gained from the reading of Scripture to crystallize
in his mind as absolute revealed truth. A reading of the first
few chapters of Genesis leaves one with the very definite im¬
pression that life has existed on earth for, at the most, a few
thousand years. That conclusion is in conflict with the
conclusions of modern science that the earth is ancient
(1983, p. 155, emp. added).

In his 1972 volume, he had stated: "F rom the many scientific dat¬
ing methods one gets the very strong general impression that the
earth is quite ancient" (p. 103, emp. added). Dr, Sears added: "Sci¬
ence, as I indicated earlier, has seemed to indicate that life has
been here much longer than we have generally interpreted the B i-
ble to indicate” (1969, p. 97, emp, added).

182

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Day-Age Theory

The professors' point, explained in detail in their writings, is this:
Uniformitarian dating methods take precedence over the
B i ble! 0 nee again, scientific theory has become the father of bib¬
lical exegesis. The question being asked is not "What does the Bible
say?,” but rather "What do evolutionary dating methods indicate?"
In order to force the biblical record to accommodate geologic time,
defenders of these dating methods do indeed find it necessary to in¬
vent "long, complicated, and imaginative" theories.

0 ne of the most important questions, then, in the controversy
over the age of the Earth is this: If the Earth is ancient, where in the
biblical record will the time be placed to guarantee that antiquity?
There are but three options. The time needed to ensure an old Earth
might be placed: (a) during the creation week; (b) before the cre¬
ation week; or (c) after the creation week. If the time needed to ac¬
count for an old Earth cannot be inserted successfully into one of
these three places, then it quickly becomes obvious that an old-
Earth view is unscriptural. Therefore, I would like to examine each
of these.

WHY THE NEED FOR THE DAY-AGE THEORY?

The attempt to place the eons of time necessary for an ancient
Earth duri ng the creation week generally is known as the Day-Age
Theory—a view which suggests that the days of Genesis 1 were not
literal, 24-hour days, but instead were lengthy, indefinite periods or
eons of time. Arthur F. Williams observed:

There are certain areas of biblical interpretation in which Christ¬
ians find themselves in serious disagreement. One of these is
the Genesis account of creation. Some interpret the record
literally, believing each of the six days to have been cycles
of 24 hours, on the sixth of which God created man in H is own
image by divine fiat from the dust of the earth. T hey believe
that God breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life and
he became a living soul. They, likewise, believe that this oc¬
curred at a time not longer than a few thousand years ago.
Others interpret the entire record of creation "parabolically,"

183

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Day-Age Theory

and insist that the six days represent a vast period of time,
extending into millions or billions of years (1970, p. 24, emp.
in orig.).

Surburg noted:

Another group of interpreters has adopted what is known
as the "concordistic theory. "They say that the "days" of Gen¬
esis possibly are periods of time extending over millions of
years. They believe that this interpretation can be made to cor¬
respond to the various geological periods or ages. T his is some¬
times referred to as the "day-age" theory (1959, p. 57).

J ohn Klotz addressed this point in Genes, Genesis, and Evolu¬
tion: "It is hardly conceivable that anyone would question the inter¬
pretation of these as ordinary days were it not for the fact that peo¬
ple are attempting to reconcile Genesis and evolution” (1955, p.
87). Guy N. Woods concluded: "The day-age theory is a conse¬
quence of the evolutionary theory. But for that speculative view such
a hypothesis would never have been advanced” (1976b, p. 17).

IS THE DAY-AGE THEORY POPULAR?

IstheDay-AgeTheory popular? Yes, and it has been advocated
by a number of influential people in the religious community.

M any sincere and competent B ibiical scholars have felt it so
mandatory to accept the geological age system that they have
prematurely settled on the so-called day-age theory as the
recommended interpretation of Genesis 1. By this device,
they seek more or less to equate the days of creation with the
ages of evolutionary geology (Morris, 1976, p. 53).

Among those "competent Biblical scholars” to whom Dr. Morris
referred are the following. Wilbur M. Smith, former dean of M oody
B ibie Institute, went on record as stating: "F irst of all, we must dis¬
miss from our mind any conception of a definite period of time, ei¬
ther for creation itself, or for the length of the so-called six creative
days" (1945, p. 312). Bernard Ramm called the belief that the days
ofcreation were 24-hour days the "naive, literal view" (1954, pp.
120 - 121 ).

184

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Day-Age Theory

M errill U nger, in his Bible H and book, wrote that the view which
understands the days of Genesis 1 to be literal 24-hour days is "gen¬
erally recognized as untenable in an age of science” (1966, p. 38).
Kenneth Taylor, producer of the Living Bible Paraphrased, added
footnotes to the text of G enesis 1 in that volume in an attempt to
explain to the reader that the H ebrew phrase "evening and morn¬
ing" (used repeatedly throughout the chapter) actually means a long
period of time. In his book. Evolution and the H igh School Stu¬
dent, Taylor wrote:

To me it appears that God's special creative acts occurred
many times during 6 long geological periods capped by the
creation of Adam and Eve perhaps more than 1 million years
ago. This idea seems to do justice both to the Bible and to
what geologists and anthropologists currently believe. If they
change their dates up or down, it will make no difference to
this belief, unless to move Adam's age forward or backward
(1974, p. 62).

Edward j ohn Carnell of Fuller Theological Seminary advised: "And
since orthodoxy has given up the literal-day theory out of respect for
geology, it would certainly forfeit no principle if it gave up the im¬
mediate-creation theory out of respect for paleontology. The two
seem to be quite parallel" (1959, p. 95).

In more recent times, the Day-Age Theory has been championed
by such writers as Davis A. Y oung (Creation and the Flood, 1977,
p. 132), Alan FI ayward (Creation and Evolution: The Facts and
the Fallacies, 1985, p. 164), Flowardj .Van Till (The Fourth Day,
1986, pp. 75-93; Portraits of Creation, 1990, pp. 236-242), and
FI ugh Ross (Creation and Time, 1994, pp. 45-90). Others have
lent it their support as well. For example, in his audio-taped lecture.
Questions and Answers: Number One,] ohn Clayton remarked:

I believe it is totally inconsequential as to whether or not the
days of Genesis were 24-hour days or not. It isn't until the
fourth day until the Sun and Moon were established as chro¬
nometers. There were no days, seasons, etc.—at least as we
know them—before the fourth day! (n.d.[c]).

185

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Day-Age Theory

J ack Wood Sears,* mentioned earlier, also is on record as advocat¬
ing this particular viewpoint.

There are some who go through the motions of appearing to
be "neutral,” when in fact they clearly are not. For example, in the
April 4,1986 edition of Gospel Minutesfa weekly publication pro¬
duced by and distributed among members of the churches of Christ),
then-coeditor Clem Thurman spent a page-and-a-half answering
a reader's question on whether or not the days mentioned in G en-
esis 1 should be considered as literal 24-hour periods (1986,35[14]:
2-3). H e offered three extremely (and conspicuously!) brief points—
using only two column inches of space—discussing why the days
"might" be considered as literal, and almost two full columns sug¬
gesting reasons why they could not be. Then, of course, he urged
each reader to "decide for himself" what the "correct" answer was.
Why not just be honest and openly advocate the Day-Age Theory
without going through all the unnecessary machinations?**

* In December 1977, Dr. Sears and I shared the platform at a week-long series of lec¬
tures in Salisbury, the capital of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe). During the lectureship,
in response to a question from a young man in the audience, I stated that the days of
creation in Genesis 1 were literal, 24-hour periods. As I returned to my chair. Dr, Sears
leaned over to me and said: "There’s not a H ebrew scholar in the world who would
agree with you on that point. You are very much mistaken in believing the days of cre¬
ation to be 24-hour days." In his lecture the following day, he politely took issue with
mycommentthatthedayswereof a 24-hour duration. In my debate with him in Den¬
ton, Texas in November 1983, he once again made clear his position that the days of
G enesis likely were long epochs. A udio and video tapes of that debate are available
from the offices of Apologetics Press.

** One of the strangest concepts set forth regarding the days of Genesis 1 has been
suggested by Gerald L. Schroeder in his book. Genesis and the Big Bang. "God might
have plunked man down in a world that was ready-made from the instant of creation.
But that was noton the Creator’s agenda. There was a sequence of events, a devel¬
opment in the world, which led to conditionssuitablefor man. This isevidentfrom the
literal text of Genesis 1:1-31. By God’s timeframe, the sequence took six days.
By our time frame, it took biiiions of years" (1990, p. 85, emp. added; see also
Schroeder, 1997). Most readers no doubt will wonder how, by "God's time," it took
six days, yet in "our time" it took billions of years? Why is it that writers cannot be
forth right and simply admit that they have no intention whatsoever of believing the
"literal text" (to useSchroeder'sown words)oftheGenesisaccountasitiswritten?

186

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Day-Age Theory

There are still others, however, who are quite cautious not to
reveal their predisposition toward the Day-Age Theory, and who
go to great lengths to suggest that this is best left an "open matter"
because there are "good arguments on both sides of the issue." Bur¬
ton Coffman took such a position in his Commentary on Genesis
(1985).

DO ALL THOSE WHO ADVOCATE THE
DAY-AGE THEORY BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION?

Is it the case that all those who advocate the Day-Age Theory
are either evolutionists or theistic evolutionists? No, not necessarily.
There are some who prefer to be called simply "old-Earth creation¬
ists" because they claim to accept neither evolution nor theistic evo¬
lution. As Surburg observed:

M any C hristians who today hold this view are not necessar¬
ily evolutionists. They do not believe that God employed the
evolutionary method to produce man, and they endeavor to
reconcile the process indicated by paleontology with the cre¬
ative days of Genesis (1959, p. 57).

Williams agreed, but cautioned:

...we do not mean to imply that all who hold to the day-age
theory are evolutionists. We do insist, however, that such a
view can be maintained only by an acceptance of the mental
construct known as the geologic column, which is based upon
the assumption of evolution (1970, p. 25).

Indeed, if evolutionary dogma (with its accompanying uniformitar-
ian-based dating methods) had not been allowed to sit in judgment
on the biblical record in the first place, there would have been no
need for the Day-Age Theory. As Williams went on to point out,
there also is an inherent danger in accepting such a theory.

The day-age theory, though espoused by some men who are
sincere C hristians, is fraught with dangerous consequences
to the C hristian faith. This question is not merely academic,
as some assert, but it directly affects biblical theology.... The
first chapters of Genesis must be regarded as the seed plot

187

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Day-Age Theory

of the entire Bible, and if we err here, there is reason to be¬
lieve that those who come under false interpretations of the
Genesis account of creation will sooner or later become in¬
volved in error in other areas of divine revelation. It is our con¬
viction that once the interpretation of the six days of
creation which makes them extended periods of per¬
haps millions of years in duration is accepted, the
door is opened for the entire evolutionary philosophy
(1970, pp. 24-25, emp. added).

H enry M orris was correct when he said: "The day-age theory
is normally accompanied by either the theory of theistic evolution
or the theory of progressive creation. ...neither theistic evolution
nor progressive creation is tenable Biblically or theologically. Thus
the day-age theory must likewise be rejected" (1974a, p. 222). Wes¬
ton W. Fields said that he has noticed:

...the underlying presupposition of the day-age theory is that
geologic evolutionists are correct in their allegations about
the immense eons of time necessary to accountfor the geo¬
logical features of the earth, and the biological evolutionists
are at least partially correct when they say that in some sense
higher forms came from lower forms. Thus, many (though
not all) day-age theorists are also theistic evolutionists and pro¬
gressive creationists (1976, p. 166, parenthetical item in orig.).

IS THERE LEXICAL AND EXEGETICAL EVI¬
DENCE TO SUPPORTTHE DAY-AGE THEORY?

In examining whether or not there is lexical and exegetical sup¬
port for the Day-Age Theory, the question should be asked: "If the
author of Genesis wanted to instruct his readers on the fact that all
things had been created in six literal days, what words might he have
used to convey such a thought?" H enry Morris has suggested:

...the writer would have used the actual words in Genesis 1.

If he wished to convey the idea of long geological ages, how¬
ever, he could surely have done it far more clearly and effec¬
tively in other words than in those which he selected. It was
clearly his intent to teach creation in six literal days.

188

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Day-Age Theory

Therefore, theonly proper way to interpret Genesisl is not
to "interpret" it at all. That is, we accept the fact that it was
meant to say exactly what it says. The "days" are literal days
and the events described happened in just the way described
(1976, p. 54).

A second question that must be asked is this: "Is there adequate
(or, for that matter, any) lexical and exegetical evidence to suggest
that the days of creation should be interpreted as ages of time?" In
my estimation, the most thorough rebuttal of the Day-Age Theory
(and, coincidentally, ofthe Gap Theory)ever put into print is Un¬
formed and Unfilled by Weston W, Fields. In that volume. Dr.
Fields addressed the complete lack of evidence—from the biblical
text itself—for the Day-Age Theory.

WiththeGapTheorytheDay-AgeTheorysharestheadvan-
tage of allowing unlimited amounts of time. But it also has an
advantage which the Gap Theory does not: it allows the ge¬
ologist the sequence he wants (assuming he ignores the bibli¬
cal sequences), and it allows the biologists to have partial or
complete evolution. FI owever, it also shares one disadvantage
with the Gap Theory—indeed, itoutdoes the Gap Theory in
this particular: it rests on very scanty exegetical evidence. The
lexical exility on which it is based is almost unbelievable: con¬
sequently, we must conclude that it springs from presuppo¬
sitions—a fact transparent even to the casual reader (1976,
pp. 156-166, emp. in orig.).

Fields then proceeded to present the lexical evidence.

...As in the case of other problems involving meanings of
words, our study must begin with FI ebrew lexicography. Nearly
all the defenders of the theory fail, however, to give any lexi¬
cal backing to the theory. The reader is left completely unin¬
formed concerning the use of yom (day) in the 0 Id Testament.
Therefore, we have listed a complete summary of both B rown.
Driver, and Briggs's as well as Koehler and Baumgartner's
listings. Nothing less than a complete examination ofthe
evidence will suffice. In the lexicon of Brown, Driver, and
Briggs, there are seven primary meanings for yom (day), with
numerous subheadings:

189

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Day-Age Theory

1. Day, opposite of night. Listed underthis heading are Gen¬
esis 1:5,15,16,18.

2. Day, as a division of time.

a. working day.

b. a day's journey.

c. to denote various acts or states such as seven days.
Genesis 7:4.

d. day as defined by evening and morning. Listed here
are Genesis 1:5,8,13,19,23,31.

e. day of the month.

f. day defined by substantive, infinitive, etc., such as
the "snowy day."

g. particuiar days defined by proper name of piace, such
as the Sabbath Day.

h. your, his, or their day, as in the sense of the day of
disaster or death: "your day has come."

3. The day of Y ahweh, as the time of his coming in judg¬
ment.

4. The days of someone, equaiing his iife, or his age: "ad¬
vanced in days."

5. Days.

a indefinite: some days, a few days.

b. of a iong time: "many days."

c. days of oid: former or ancient times.

6. Time.

a. vividiy in generai sense as in the "time of harvest."

b. used in apposition to other expressions of time,
such as a "month of days" equaisa "month of time."

7. Used in phrases with and without the prepositions.

a. such as with the definite articie, meaning "today."

b. in the expression "and the day came that," meaning
"when."

c. in an expression such as "io, days are coming."

d. in construct before verbs, both iiteraiiy, the day of,
and (often) in generai sense—the time of (forcible
and pregnant representing the act vividly as that of a
single day). U nder this definition is listed Genesis 2:4.

e. day by day (yom yom).

f. in expressions such as "all the days" meaning always,
continually.

190

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Day-Age Theory

g. in an additional phrase with bet meaning on a par¬
ticular day.

h. with kap, meaning as, like the day.

i. with lamed, meaning on or at the day.

j. with min, meaning since the day or from the day.

k. with lemin, meaning since the day.

l. with 'ad, meaning until the day.

m. with 'al, meaning upon the day.

Koehler and Baumgartner list the usages of yom under ten
different headings:

1. Day, bright daylight, as opposite of night.

2. Day, of 24 hours. Listed under this heading is Genesis
1:5.

3. Special days, such as the "day of prosperity," or the "day
of adversity."

4. Yahweh's day.

5. Plural or day, such as "seven days."

6. Plural of day, such as "the days ofthe years of your life."

7. Plural of day in a usage to refer to a month or year.

8. Dual, such as in the expression, "a day or two."

9. With the article, "that day."

10. With a preposition such as bet, "on the day," or "when."

N ow these are the meanings the lexicons give. For the read¬
er interested in all the evidence, here it is. We must immedi¬
ately raise the question: where is the lexical support for iden¬
tifying the days of Genesis as long periods of time? Far from
supporting the notion that the creative days of Genesis 1
are vast ages, extending, perhaps, over millions of years, the
lexicons suggest that "day," as used to refer to creation isof
the normal 24 hours duration. This is the natural interpre¬
tation (1976, pp. 169-172, emp. in orig.).

The evidence supporting the days of creation being 24-hour peri¬
ods is overwhelming, as Fields has amply documented. In addi¬
tion to that evidence, I would like to offer the following for consid¬
eration.

191

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Day-Age Theory

EVIDENCE SUBSTANTIATING THE DAYS OF
GENESIS 1 AS LITERAL, 24-HOUR PERIODS

1. The days of creation should be accepted as literal, 24-hour pe¬
riods because the context demands such a rendering.

The language of the text is simple and clear. H onest exegetes
cannot read anything else out of these verses than a day of
24 hours and a week of 7 days. There is not the slightest in¬
dication that this is to be regarded as poetry or as an alle¬
gory or that it is not to betaken as a historical fact. The lan¬
guage is that of normal human speech to be taken at face
value, and the unbiased reader will understand it as it reads.

There is no indication that anything but a literal sense is meant
(Rehwinkle, 1974, p. 70).

It is true that the word in the H ebrew for day (yom), as in other
languages, can be employed with a variety of meanings. But, as
in all other languages, the context in which the word is used is crit¬
ical in determining what the word means in any given instance.
Henry Morris noted:

There is no doubt that yom can be used to express time in a
general sense. In fact, it is actually translated as "time" in the
King] ames translation 65 times. On the other hand, it is trans¬
lated as "day" almost 1200 times.... Whenever the writer
really intended to convey the idea of a very long duration of
time, he normally used some such word as 'olam (meaning
"age" or "long time") or else attached to yom an adjective such
as rab (meaning "long"), so that the two words together yom
rab, then meant "long time." But yom by itself can appar¬
ently never be proved, in one single case, to require the mean¬
ing of a long period of time, and certainly no usage which
would suggesta geologic age (1974a, p. 223, emp. inorig.).

The following quotation from Arthur Williams documents sev¬
eral important points in this controversy, especially in light of
the Day-Age theorists' inconsistency. We are told that yom in Gen¬
esis 1 is an "age.” Y et Day-Age proponents are unwilling to trans¬
late the word in this fashion elsewhere, for it makes no sense to
do so, and destroys the meaning of the passages.

192

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Day-Age Theory

What did the word yom (day)mean to Mosesandto Israel in
the day in which the books of Moses were written?...

In the Genesis account of creation the word "day" occurs
14 times, always a translation of the H ebrew word yom.

Those who hold to the day-age theory ask us to give the word
"day" a meaning which it has nowhere else in the five books
of Moses....

As if the consistent significance of the word yom through¬
out the writings of M oses were not enough to establish the
meaning of the English word "day," God added statements
which are difficult to interpret otherwise. "...God divided
the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day
and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and
the morning were the first day." In the light of cultural con¬
siderations of hermeneutics, can anyone honestly believe that
these terms as used in the Genesis account of creation had
a meaning almost infinitely removed from the meaning which
they had elsewhere in the writings of Moses? The word "day"
would have had no meaning to M oses or to his contempo¬
raries other than that which was limited by reference to the
sun. Itwould be impossible to prove from Scripture that the
Israelites in the days of M oses had any concept of a "day" in
terms of millions or billions of years. The evidence arising
from serious consideration of the cultural meaning of the word
yom as used by Moses and understood by the Israelites is
wholly on the side of the 24-hour day in the Genesis account
of creation. Such a view is consistent with its meaning as used
by Moses throughout his writings (1970, pp. 26-28, emp. in
orig.).

As an example of the point Dr, Williams is making, consider the
useofyominNumbers7:12,18.lnthisco n text, th e d i sc u ssio n
is the offering of sacrifices by the princes of Israel. V erse 12 re¬
cords: "And he that offered his oblation the first day was N ah-
shon, thesonofAmminadab, of the tribe ofj udah," Verse 18 re¬
cords, "0 n the second day N ethanel the son of Zuar, prince of
Issachar, did offer," Notice the sequential nature involved via the
use of "first day" and "second day." Do Day-Age theorists sug¬
gest that M oses meant to say "in the first eon," or "in the second
age" the events recorded transpired? Of course not. Why, then.

193

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Day-Age Theory

should the treatment of the word yom in Genesis 1 beany dif¬
ferent? Indeed, it would not be, were it not for the desire to in¬
corporate evolutionary theory into the biblical text,

2. The days of creation should be accepted as literal, 24-hour pe¬
riods because God both used and defined the word yom in
the context of Genesis 1. It is nothing short of amazing to dis¬
cover the evidence built into the text for "interpreting” what kind
of days these were. In Genesis 1:5, Moses wrote: "And God called
the light D ay, and the darkness H e called N ight, A nd the evening
and the morning were the first day." Thus, the "first day" is de¬
fined as a period of both day and night—i.e., a normal day.

Further, Genesis 1:14 is instructive in this matter: "And God said,
let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day
from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons, and for
days and for years.' ” If the "days" are "ages,” then what are the
years? If a day is an age, then what is a night? The entire mean¬
ing of the passage is lost when one "reinterprets" the word "day."
Marcus Dods, writing in the Expositor's Bible, said simply: "If
the word 'day' in this chapter [Genesis 1 —bt] does not mean a
period of 24 hours, the interpretation of Scripture is hopeless”
(1948, 1:4-5). Klotz correctly observed:

It Is a general principle of B Ibllcal Interpretation that a word
Is to be taken In Its everyday meaning unless there Is com¬
pelling evidence that It must be taken In a different sense....

But there Is nothing In the text or context of Genesis 1 which
Indicates thatthese were long periods of time. Sound prin¬
ciples of B Ibllcal Interpretation require that we accept this
"day" as being an ordinary day (1955, pp. 84-85).

Fields summarized the argument by stating: "The farther we read
in the creation account, the more obvious it is that M oses intend¬
ed his readers to understand that God created the universe in six
24-hour days. Nothing could be more obvious!" (1976, p. 174,
emp. in orig.).

194

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Day-Age Theory

3. The days of creation should be accepted as literal, 24-hour pe¬
riods because whenever yom is preceded by a numeral in 0 Id
Testament non-prophetical literature (viz., the same kind of lit¬
erature found in Genesis 1), it a I ways carries the meaning of a
normal day. Arthur Williams spoke to this point in the Creation
Research Annual when he wrote: "We have failed to find a single
example of the use of the word 'day' in the entire Scripture where
it means other than a period of twenty-four hours when modi¬
fied bythe use ofthe numerical adjective" (1965, p. 10). Henry
Morris concurred:

It might still be contended that, even though yom never re¬
quires the meaning of a long age, it might possibly permit
it. However, the writer of the first chapter of Genesis has very
carefully guarded against such a notion, both by modifying
the noun by a numerical adjective ("first day," "second day,"
etc.), and also by indicating the boundaries ofthe time peri¬
od in each case as "evening and morning." Either one of
these devices would suffice to limit the meaning of yom to
that of a solar day, and when both are used, there could be
no better or surer way possible for the writer to convey the
intended meaning of a literal solar day.

T 0 prove this, it is noted that whenever a limiting numeral
or ordinal is attached to "day" in the 0 Id Testament (and there
are over 200 such instances), the meaning is always that of
a literal day (1974a, pp. 223-224, emp. and parenthetical
items in orig.).

Raymond Surburg was invited to contribute to the book, Darwin,
Evolution, and Creation, edited by Paul Zimmerman. In his chap¬
ter, Dr. Surburg quoted from a letter written by renowned Cana¬
dian anthropologist, A rthur C. C ustance, and sent to nine con¬
temporary H ebrew scholars, members of the faculties of nine lead¬
ing universities—three in Canada, three in the U nited States, and
three in England. In the letter. Dr. Custance inquired about the
meaning of yom as used in Genesis. For example, he asked: "Do
you understand the H ebrew yom, as used in Genesis 1, accom¬
panied by a numeral, to be properly translated as: (a) a day as
commonly understood, or (b) an age, or (c) an age or a day with-

195

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Day-Age Theory

out preference for either?" Seven of the nine replied, and all stated
that the word yom means "a day as commonly understood" (as
quoted in Surburg, 1959, p. 61). Thus, when the writer stated
in Exodus 20:11 that God created the Earth and everything in
it in six days, he meant what he said—six literal, 24-hour days.

4. The days of creation should be accepted as literal, 24-hour pe¬
riods because whenever yom occurs in the plural (yamim) in
Old Testament non-prophetical literature (viz., the same kind of
literature found in G enesis 1), it always carries the meaning of a
normal day. Y amim, the H ebrew word for "days," appears over
700 times in the Old T estament. In each of these instances where
the language is non-prophetical in nature, it always refers to
literal days. Thus, in Exodus 20:11, when the Scriptures say that
"in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that
in them is," there can be no doubt that six literal days are meant.
Even the most liberal Bible scholars do not attempt to negate the
force of this argument by suggesting that G enesis 1 and Exodus
20:11 are prophetical.

5. The days of creation should be accepted as literal, 24-hour pe¬
riods because whenever yom is modified by the phrase "evening
and morning" in Old Testament non-prophetical literature (viz.,
the same kind of literature found in Genesis 1), it always carries
the meaning of a normal day.

H aving separated the day and night, God had completed His
first day's work. "The evening and the morning were the first
day." This same formula Is used atthe conclusion of each of
the six days: so It Is obvious that the duration of each of the
days, Including the first, was the same.... It Is clear that, be¬
ginning with the first day and continuing thereafter, there was
established a cyclical succession of days and nights—periods
of light and periods of darkness.

The writer not only defined the term "day," but emphasized
that It was terminated by a literal evening and morning and
that It was like every other day In the normal sequence of days.

In no way can the term be legitimately applied here to any¬
thing corresponding to a geological period or any other such
concept (Morris, 1976, pp. 55-56).

196

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Day-Age Theory

Addressing the text from the perspective of one who had stud¬
ied the original languages of the B ibie for over fifty years, the late
Guy N. Woods wrote:

The "days" of Genesis 1 are divided into lightand darkness
exactly as is characteristic of the day known to us. "And God
saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from
the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness
H ecalled Night. And theevening and the morning were
the first day" (Genesis 1:4,5). This simple and sublime state¬
ment is decisive of the matter. Of what was the first day com¬
posed? Evening and morning. Into what was it divided? Light
and darkness. The H ebrew text is even more emphatic. The
translation, "And the evening and the morning were the first
day" is literally, "And evening was, and day was, day one."

The two periods—evening and morning—made one day. The
J ewish modeof reckoning the day was from sunset to sun¬
set; i.e., evening and morning, the two periods combining to
make one day (1976b, p. 17, emp. in orig.).

This phrase "evening and morning” is important as a modifier,
especially in light of the fact that Day-Age theorists insist that these
days were long epochs of time. The question must be asked: "H as
anyone ever seen an 'eon' with an evening and morning?"

Some have suggested, of course, that literal, 24-hour days would
not have been possible until at least the fourth day, because the
Sun had not been created yet. Notice, however, that the same
"evening and morning" is employed before Genesis 1:14 (i.e.,
the creation of the Sun) as after it. Why should there be three long
eras of time before the appearance of the Sun, and only 24-hour
days after its creation? Both Klotz and Woods have addressed
this objection.

Insofar as the view is concerned that these could not be or¬
dinary days because the sun had not been created, we should
like to point to the fact that we still measure time in terms of
days even though the sun does not appear or is not visible.

For instance, north of the Arctic Circle and south of the Ant¬
arctic C ircle the sun does not appear for periods of time up
to six months at the poles themselves. We would not think

197

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Day-Age Theory

of measuring time in terms of the appearance or lack of ap¬
pearance of the sun in these areas. No one would contend that
at the N Orth or South Pole a day is the equivalent of six months
elsewhere (Klotz, 1955, p. 85).

...If to this the objection is offered that the sun did not shine
on the earth until the fourth day, it should be remembered that
it is the function of the heavenly bodies to mark the days,
not make them! It is night when no moon appears: and the
day is the same whether the sun is seen or not (Woods, 1976b,
p. 17, emp. in orig.).

By way of summary, it may be said that:

(a) The phrase "evening and morning" was the H ebrew way of
describing a literal, 24-hour day.

(b) There are no instances in the non-prophetical 0 Id Testament
passages where the phrase "evening and morning" represents
anything more than a literal, 24-hour day.

(c) The presence of the Sun and M oon do not regulate the day
and the night, The Earth's rotation on its axis does that. Since
the phrase "evening and morning" is used both before and
after the Sun's creation, the days are obviously literal, 24-hour
days.

6. The days of creation should be accepted as literal, 24-hour pe¬
riods because M oses had at his disposal the means by which to
express long periods of time, but purposely did not use wording
in the original H ebrew that would have portrayed such an idea.
Fields commented:

Perhapsthe mosttelling argumentagainstthe Day-AgeThe-
ory is, "what else could God say to convey the idea that the
days of creation were literal days?" He used the only terms
available to him to communicate that idea. There was a word,
on the other hand, which M oses could have used had he want¬
ed to signify ages or vast periods of time. H e could have used
the word dor which has that very meaning. But instead he
used the word "day," and we think the reason he did is very
obvious to the unbiased reader: H e wanted to tell his readers
that all of creation took place in six literal 24-hour days! (1976,
pp. 177-178, emp. in orig.).

198

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Day-Age Theory

7. The days of creation should be accepted as literal, 24-hour pe¬
riods because of the problems in the field of botany if the days
are pressed into becoming long periods of time. Woods wrote:

Botany, the field of plant-life, came into existence on the third
day. Those who allege that the days of Genesisl may have
been long geological ages, must accept the absurd hypothesis
that plant-life survived in periods of total darkness through
half of each geologic age, running into millions of years (1976b,
p. 17).

Henry Morris also has addressed this issue:

The objection is sometimes raised that the first three days
were not days as they are today since the sun was not cre¬
ated until day four. 0 ne could of course turn this objection
against those who raise it. The longer the first three days, the
more catastrophic it would be for the sun not to be on hand
during those days, if indeed the sun is the only possible source
of light for the earth. The vegetation created on the third day
might endure for a few hours without sunlight, but hardly for
a geologic age! (1974a, p. 224).

In addition, there is a serious problem regarding reproduction of
plants. The G enesis text indicates that plants were created on day
three. Y et other living things were not created until days five and
six. H ow could plants have survived that are pollinated solely by
insects? C lover is pollinated by bees, and the yucca plant has the
pronuba moth as its only means of pollination. H ow did plants
multiply if they were growing millions of years before the insects
came into existence?

8. The days of creation should be accepted as literal, 24-hour pe¬
riods because of plain statements about them within the Scrip¬
tures.

(a) "for in six days] ehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and
all that in them is" (Exodus 20:11).

(b) "F or H e spake, and it was done; H e commanded, and it stood
fast” (Psalm 33:9).

199

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Day-Age Theory

(d) "for in six daysj ehovah made heaven and earth, and on the
seventh day he rested, and was refreshed" (Exodus 31:17),

Does a simple, straightforward reading of these verses imply a
long period of evolutionary progress, or six literal, 24-hour days
and instantaneous creation? Riegle answered:

The H ebrew text implies that the Creative acts were accom¬
plished instantly. In Genesis 1:11 God's literal command was,
"Earth, sprout sprouts!" In the very next verse we find the re¬
sponse to the command—"The earth caused plants to go out."

There is no hint that great ages of time were required to ac¬
complish this phase of the C reation. It could have been done
in only minutes, or even seconds, as far as God's creative pow¬
er is concerned (1962, pp. 27-28).

In its appropriate context, each of these passages can be under¬
stood correctly to be speaking only of literal days and instanta¬
neous creation.

9. The days of creation should be accepted as literal, 24-hour pe¬
riods because of God's explicit command to the Israelites to work
six days and rest on the seventh, just as H e had done. H e told
them not only what to do, but why to do it.

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt
thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is a sab¬
bath unto] ehovah thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work,
thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy
maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy
gates: for in six days] ehovah made heaven and earth, the sea,
and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: where¬
fore] ehovah blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it (Exo¬
dus 20:8-11).

The Sabbath command can be understood properly only when
the days of the week are recognized as being 24-hour days. A ,E,
Wilder-Smith aptly summarized the problem that results (in re¬
gard to the Sabbath) if the days are not accepted as literal, 24-hour
days.

200

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Day-Age Theory

A nother difficulty arises if one tries to apply the age-equals-
day interpretation. The whole important biblical doctrine of
the Sabbath is weakened by this view. For God is reported as
having rested on the seventh day after working the six days.

The implication is that man should also rest on the seventh
day as God did. B ut did God rest for an age, maybe of millions
of years? The whole biblical concept of the Sabbath is cou¬
pled with six working days and one day of rest in seven. God
certainly did not need to rest, but presumably set us a pat¬
tern with the Sabbath rest (1975, p. 44).

OBJ ECTIONS CONSIDERED

Three specific objections to 24-hour creation days often are men¬
tioned by those who advocate an old Earth,

"One Day Is With The Lord As A Thousand Years”

The first objection has to do with the passage found in 2 Peter
3:8,

[l]n the last days, mockers shall come with mocking, walk¬
ing after their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of
his coming? for, from the day that the fathers fell asleep, all
things continue as they were from the beginning of the cre¬
ation." For this they willfully forget, that there were heavens
from of old, and an earth compacted out of water and amidst
water, by the word of God; by which means the world that
then was, being overflowed with water, perished: but the heav¬
ens that now are, and the earth, bythe same word have been
stored up for fire, being reserved against the day of judgment
and destruction of ungodly men. B ut forget not this one thing,
beloved, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand
years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not
slack concerning his promise, as some count slackness: but
is longsuffering to you-ward, not wishing that any should per¬
ish, but that all should come to repentance. B ut the day of
the Lord will come as a thief... (emp. added).

Some have suggested that this passage indicates that the "days”
of Genesis could have been thousands of years in duration, rather
than 24-hour periods. The passage, however, is not discussing the

201

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Day-Age Theory

length of the days in Genesis 1. Nor is it speaking of the length of
"God's days" in general. Those who suggest that support can be
found in Peter's statements for increasing the length of the creation
days have failed to take into account the context of Peter's comments
—a context that is critical to an understanding of the apostle's mes¬
sage. J ohn C. Whitcomb observed:

N ote carefully that the verse does not say that God's days
last thousands of years, but that "one day Is with the Lord as
a thousand years." In other words, God Is completely above
the limitations of time In the sense that he can accomplish
In one literal day what nature or man could not accomplish
In thousands of years. If ever. Note that one day Is as a thou¬
sand years, not is a thousand years, with God. If "one day"
in this verse means a long period of time, then we would end
up with the following absurdity: "a long period of time is with
the Lord as a thousand years." Instead of this, the verse re¬
veals how much God can accomplish in a 24-hour day, and
thus sheds much light upon the events of Creation Week
(1975, 36:68, emp. in orig.).

Peter is discussing specific things that will take place "in the last
days" when mockers shall ask, "Where is the promise of his coming?"
The apostle is not referring to, nor does his discussion center on,
"the first days" (i.e., the days of Genesis 1). Rather, he is warning
against those living in the Christian dispensation who, after Christ's
resurrection and ascension, doubted that H e would return as H e
had promised. G uy N. Woods elucidated the thrust of Peter's com¬
ments when he wrote:

The passage should be considered In the light of Its context.

The material heavens and earth are to suffer destruction by
fire, despite the mockers who scoff at such predictions and
who allege. In the face ofthe earth's earlier destruction by
water, that all things must continue as they are from the be¬
ginning (2 Peter 3:1-7). All such are "willingly Ignorant," and
refuse to accept the clear and obvious lessons of history.
Faithful followers of the Lord are not to be Influenced by
these skeptics, but to remember "that one day Is with theLord
as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

202

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Day-Age Theory

By this the apostle meant that the passing of time does not,
in any way, affect the performance of God's promises or
threats. H e is not influenced by the passing of the centuries:
and the lapse of time between the promise or threat, and the
performance, is no factor, at all. With man, it definitely is.

That which we promise to do tomorrow, we are much more
likely to do, than that which we promise next year, or in the
next century, since we may not be here then to fulfill the prom¬
ise. But, this limitation, so characteristic of man, does not in¬
fluence Deity. The passing of a thousand years, to God, does
not alter his plans and purposes any more than a day, and
he will carry them out as he has planned, regardless of the
amount of time which is involved (1976b, p. 146).

In his commentary on Peter's epistles, R.C.H. Lenski brilliantly
explained both the purpose of the apostle's comments and the im¬
pact those comments were intended to have on his readers.

Entirely too much escapes the mockers, hence their igno¬
rant mocking (v. 5-7). This is a point that may escape even
Peter's readers, which he, therefore, wants them to note well:

"that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thou¬
sand years as one day." This is Peter's own statement which
is based on Ps. 90:4: "A thousand years in thy sight are as yes¬
terday when it is passed and as a watch in the night." God
created time....

With the Lord time is evidently not what it is to us who live
in time. H e is above time. Peter does not say that the Lord is
timeless, which he, of course, is, but that his relation to time
must never be confused with our relation to time. A day seems
short to us, a thousand years a very long period. With the Lord
a single day is "as a thousand years," and vice versa. Let us
not overlook the two i5y, "as." Peter does not say: "A single
day is a thousand years, and a thousand years are a day...."
Whether it be a day or a thousand years as we count time,
both are really the same with the Lord; neither hampers nor
helps him. Those who apply this dictum to the word "day" in
Genesis 1 and make "day" in Genesis 1 equal to a period that
consists of millions of years find no support in this passage
(1966b, pp. 344-345, emp. in orig.).

203

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Day-Age Theory

Henry Morris noted:

Similarly, the familiar verse in 2 Peter 3:8 has been badly mis¬
applied when used to teach the day-age theory. In the con¬
text, itteaches the opposite, and one should remember that
a "text without a context is a pretext." Peter...is saying that,
despite man's naturalistic scoffings, God can do in one day
what, on uniformitarian premises, mightseemto requirea
thousand years. God does not require aeons of time to ac¬
complish H is work of creating and redeeming things. It is even
interesting that on the above equation—one day for a thou¬
sand years or 365,000 days—the actual duration of God's
work with the earth and man—say about 7,000 years becomes
about two-and-a-half-billion years, which is at least of the or¬
der of magnitude of the "apparent age" of the world as cal¬
culated by uniformitarianism! (1974a, pp. 226-227).

Biblical language scholar Weston W. Fields commented on the
passage in this manner.

This verse is often used to support the Day-Age Theory. Y et
far from supporting the theory, it actually disproves it! What
the verse indicates is that things which are so complex that
from the human standpoint they would seem to have taken
God a thousand years to accomplish, are things God can do
in one day. This verse shows us how God can do such a fan¬
tastic amountof work in such a short period of time (1976,
p. 177).

This particular passage in 2 Peter 3:8 serves to illustrate that
time is of little essence with God. Peter's obvious intent was to stress
that in a short period time—namely, a 24-hour day—God can do
the work that would take man or nature a thousand years (if ever)
to accomplish. Similarly, God does not tire, although thousands of
years may pass, because with H im a thousand years are as a day.
This passage may be (and, in fact, is!) a wonderfully moving com¬
mentary on the eternal nature of God, but there is nothing what¬
soever in it to intimate that the days of Genesis were eons of time.
Those days should not to be reinterpreted via a gross misapplica¬
tion of 2 Peter 3:8.

204

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Day-Age Theory

Too Much Activity On Day Six

The second objection to the days of Genesis being literal, 24-hour
periods is that the sixth day could not have been a normal day be¬
cause too much activity occurred on that day. Alan H ayward, who
accepts this criticism as legitimate because he holdsto the Day-Age
Theory, has explained why he believes this to be a valid argument
against the 24-hour days.

Finally, there is strong evidence that the sixth day of creation
must have lasted more than 24 hours. Look how much took
place in that sixth day! To begin with, God created the higher
animals, and then created Adam. After that:

"And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden.... And out of
the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree..." (Gen¬
esis 2:8,9). Then every living animal and every bird was
brought to Adam for naming.

In all that long procession of living things, Adam saw that
"there was not found a helper fit for him" Genesis 2:20). So
God put Adam to sleep, created Eve, and presented her to
Adam, who joyfully declared:

This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she
shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man
(Verse 23).

All commentators are agreed thatthe expression translated
"at last" in the RSV means just that. T hey usually express the
literal meaning of the FI ebrew as "now, at length," and some
of them quote numerous other passages in the 0 Id Testa-
ment where this FI ebrew word carried the same sort of mean¬
ing. Thus, the FI ebrew indicates that Adam had been kept
waiting a long time for his wife to appear—and all on the sixth
day (1985, pp. 164-165, emp. in orig.).

This is one of the few attempts to prove thatthe days of creation
were long periods of time by actually appealing to the B ibie itself.
Generally no such attempts are made by those holding to the Day-Age
Theory. Instead, they routinely base their case on scientific argu¬
ments that appeal to the apparent antiquity of the Earth, to geolog¬
ical phenomena, etc. H ere, however, their position is as follows:

205

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Day-Age Theory

(1) there is textual evidence in G enesis 2 that the sixth day of cre¬
ation could not have been a literal day (as suggested by H ayward,
above); (2) but obviously it was the same type of "day" as each of the
previous five; (3) thus, none of the "days” of the creation week is to
be viewed as literal.

The argument (from H ayward's statement of it) is two-pronged.
First, it is said that after God created Adam on the sixth day, H e
commissioned him to name the animals before Eve was fash¬
ioned later on that same day—a task that would have taken a much
longer period than a mere 24-hour day. Second, it is alleged that
when Adam first saw Eve, he exclaimed: "This is now [H ayward's
"at last”] bone of my bones...,” and his statement thus reflects that
he had been without a mate for quite some time—certainly longer
than a few hours. This compromise is advocated not only by H ay-
ward, but by Gleason Archer in his Encyclopedia of Biblical Dif¬
ficulties (1982, pp. 58ff.) and by H ugh Ross in Creation and Time
(1994, pp. 50-51).

Significantly, Professor Archer reveals that he has been influenced
by the assertions of evolutionary geochronology. H is discussion of
this matter is in response to the question: "H ow can Genesis 1 be
reconciled with the immense periods of time indicated by the fossil
strata?” FI e has claimed that there is conflict between Genesis and
the beliefs of evolutionary geologists only if one understands "Gen¬
esis 1 in a completely literal fashion,” which, he asserts, is unnec¬
essary. D r. A rcher has suggested that "God gave Adam a major as¬
signment in natural history. FI e was to classify every species of
animal and bird found in the preserve” (1982, p. 59). Flefurther
stated that it

...must have taken a good deal of study for Adam to exam¬
ine each specimen and decide on an appropriate name for
it, especially in view of the fact that he had absolutely no hu¬
man tradition behind him, so far as nomenclature was con¬
cerned. It must have required some years, or, at the very
least, a considerable number of months for him to complete
this comprehensive inventory of all the birds, beasts, and in¬
sects that populated the Garden of Eden (p. 60).

206

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Day-Age Theory

One would be hard pressed to find a better example of "the the¬
ory becoming father to the exegesis" than this.* Archer simply has
"read into" the divine narrative the assumptions of his baseless view.
Let us take a careful look at the Bible facts.

First, apparently only those animals that God "brought” unto
Adam were involved, and this seems to be limited (as Archer con-
cedes)to Eden. Second, certain creatures were excluded. There is no
mention, for example, offish or creeping things. Third, the text does
not suggest how broad the categories were that Adam was to name.
It is sheer assertion to claim that he was to name "every species."
God created living organisms according to "kinds"—a word that,
as it is used in the B ibie, appears to be a rather elastic term. It trans¬
lates the FI ebrew word min, which sometimes seems to indicate spe¬
cies, sometimes genus, and sometimes family or order, [But, as Wal¬
ter C. Kaiser, chairman of the department of Old Testament and
Semitic languages. Trinity Divinity School, has observed: "This gives
no support to the classical evolutionist view which requires devel¬
opments across kingdom, phyla, and classes" (see FI arris, etal., 1980,
1:504).] Fourth, why should it be assumed that Adam had to "give
a good deal of study” to this particular situation? FI e never had to
"study" such things as walking, talking, or tilling the ground; clearly
Adam had been endowed miraculously with a mature knowledge
that enabled him to make his way in that antique environment. FI e
needed no "human tradition" behind him; he was "of God" (see Luke
3:38). Let us examine what some other scholars have said about
this. C.F, Keil observed that although Adam and Eve were created
on the same day, "there is no difficulty in this, since it would not have
required much time to bring the animals to Adam to see what he
would call them, as the animals of paradise are all we have to think
of" (1971, 1:87). FI.C. Leopold concurred:

207

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Day-Age Theory

IT]hat there is a limitation of the number of creatures brought
before man is made apparent by two things. In the first place,
the beasts are described as beasts of the field (haseh), not
beasts of the earth, as in 1:24. Though there is difficulty in
determining the exact limits of the term "field" in this instance,
there is great likelihood (cf. also v. 5) that it may refer to the
garden only. In the second place, the fish of the sea are left
out, also inv. 20, as being less near to man. To this we are in¬
clined to add a third consideration, the fact, namely, that the
garden could hardly have been a garden at all if all creatures
could have overrun it unimpeded. Since then, very likely, only
a limited number of creatures are named, the other difficulty
falls away, namely, that man could hardly have named all crea¬
tures in the course of a day (1942, 1:130-131, emp. inorig.).

As Henry Morris has pointed out,

...the created kinds undoubtedly represented broader cate¬
gories than our modern species or genera, quite possibly ap¬
proximating in most cases the taxonomic famiiy. J ust how
many kinds were actuaiiy there to be named is unknown, of
course, but it couid hardiy have been as many as a thousand.
Aithough even this number wouid seem formidabie to us to¬
day, itshouid be remembered that Adam was newiy created,
with mentai activity and physicai vigor corresponding to an
unfaiien state. H e certainiy couid have done the job in a day
and, at the very most, it wouid have taken a few days even
for a modern-day person, so there is nothing anywhere in the
account to suggest that the sixth day was anything iikeageo-
iogicai age (1984, p. 129, emp. in orig.).

As it turns out, Dr. Archer's argument about the animals is much
ado about nothing.

A rcher further contended that this extended period of naming
the animals left Adam with a "long and unsatisfying experience as
a lonely bachelor" and so he was "emotionally prepared" when Eve
finally arrived on the scene. 0 ne writer declared concerning Adam:
"It seems that he had been searching diligently for a long time for a
suitable mate, and when he found her, he burst out. This at last
[literally, 'this time'] is bone of my bones, etc." (Willis, 1979, p.
113, emp. and bracketed item in orig.).

208

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Day-Age Theory

Again, one can only express amazement at how some scholars
so adroitly "read between the lines." There is nothing in the state¬
ment, "This is now bone of my bones" that hints at—much less de¬
mands—a long, lonely bachelorhood for Adam, The H ebrew word
translated "now" is pa'am. The term does not require a protracted
span of time, as asserted by Willis. It can denote simply a contrast
with that which has been recorded previously, as it does in this con¬
text, Professor M .W. J acobus observed that the term denoted "this
time—in this instance, referring to the other pairs," and so sim¬
ply expressed Adam's satisfaction with his mate in contrast to the
animals he had been naming (1864, p, 110, emp, in orig,), Robert
J amieson wrote:

...this time, is emphatic (cf. 30:30; 46:30). Itsignifies "now
indeed," "now at last," as if his memory had been rapidly re¬
calling the successive disappointments he had met with in
not finding, amidst all the living creatures presented to him,
any one capable of being a suitable companion to him (1945,

1:46, emp. in orig.).

There is, therefore, nothing in Genesis 2 that is in conflict with
the plain, historical statements of Genesis l:27ff.: "And God cre¬
ated man in his own image, in the image of God created he him;
male and female created he them.,,. And there was evening and
there was morning, the sixth day." As I have pointed out repeat¬
edly, the Scriptures indicate that the creation week of six days was
composed of the same kind of "days” that the H ebrews employed
in their observance of the Sabbath (Exodus 20:8-11), and though
this argument has been ridiculed, it never has been answered.

There is another point, from the New Testament, that is wor¬
thy of consideration. In 1 Timothy2:13, Paul wrote: "ForAdam
was first formed, then Eve." Of special interest here is the word
"then" [Greek, eita]. This term is an adverb of time meaning "then;
next; after that" (Thayer, 1962, p, 188). It is found 16 times in
the N ew Testament in this sense. [0 nee it is employed in argumen¬
tation to add a new reason and so is rendered "furthermore” (H e-

209

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Day-Age Theory

brews 12:9).]The word, therefore, generally is used to suggest a
logical sequence between two occurrences and there never is an
indication thata long lapse of time separates the two. Note
the following:

(a) j esus "girded himself. Then [eita] he poureth water into the
basin” 0 ohn 13:5).

(b) From the cross, j esus said to Mary, "Woman, behold thy
son! Then [eitajsaith heto the disciple..." (j ohn 19:26-27).
Compare also] ohn 20:27—"Then [eitajsaith he to Thomas..."
and Mark 8:25.

(c) In Luke 8:12, some seed fell by the wayside, "then [eitajcom-
eth the devil and taketh away the word from their heart." And,
note M ark's parallel: "Straightway cometh Satan, and taketh
away the word" (4:15). These examples reveal no long laps¬
es of time.

(d) j ames said a man "is tempted when he is drawn away by his
own lust, and enticed. Then [eitajthe lust, when it hath con¬
ceived, beareth sin" (1:14-15). How long does that take?

(e) Christ appeared to Cephas; "then [eita] to the twelve" (1 Co¬
rinthians 15:5) and this was on the same day (Luke 24:34-36).
See also 1 Corinthians 15:7.

(f) In speaking of Christ's coming, Paul declared: "Then [eita]
cometh the end" (1 Corinthians 15:23-24). Will there be a
long span of time (1,000 years), as the millennialists allege,
between Christ's coming and the end? Indeed not.

(g) For the other uses of eita, seeMark4:17, Mark4:28,1 Co¬
rinthians 12:28, and 1 Timothy 3:10.

So, "Adam was first formed, then [eita] Eve” (1 Timothy 2:13).
Paul's use of this adverb, as compared with similar N ew Testament
usages elsewhere, is perfectly consistent with Moses' affirmation
that Adam and Eve were made on the same literal day of history.

210

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Day-Age Theory

God's Sabbath Rest Still Is Continuing

Day-Age theorists sometimes suggest that the seventh "day" still
is continuing. Their argument is that since "evening and morning"
is not mentioned in regard to the seventh day, it must not have been
a 24-hour day. Therefore, we are living in the seventh day—a po¬
sition they must defend to remain consistent. There are, however,
a number of serious problems with this approach. The first has been
explained by Woods.

J ehovah finished his labors at the end of the sixth day, and
on the seventh rested. The narrative provides no basis for the
assumption that the day he rested differed in any fashion
from those which preceded it. It evidently was marked out and
its length determined in the same manner as the others. If it
was notadayoftwenty-four hours, it sustains no resemblance
to the sabbath which was given to the Israelites (1976b, pp.
17-18).

M OSes' obvious intent was for the reader to understand that G od:
(1) rested (past tense); and (2) gave the seventh day (the Sabbath)
as a day of rest because H e had rested on that day.

There is a second problem with the view that the seventh day still
is continuing, J ames Pilgrim has addressed that problem,

...if the "day-age" theorists accept day seven as an "age" al¬
so, we ask, "What about day eight, or day nine, or day ten...?"

On the assumption that the earth is 7,000 years old (a
most distinct possibility), let the "day-age" proclaimers put
2,555,000 days (7,000 years at 365 days per year) on a
page. Now let them circle the day which began the normal
24-hour day. Let them also give just one scripture reference
to substantiate the validity of that circle. Can they do it? No!

Will they do it? No! (1976,118[33]:522, emp. in orig.).

The third problem with the idea that the seventh day is continuing
has to do with Adam, as Woods has noted:

Adam, the first man, was created in the sixth day, lived through
the seventh day, and into at least a portion of the eighth
day. If these days were long geologic periods of millions of
years in length, we have the interesting situation of Adam hav-

211

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Day-Age Theory

ing lived in a portion of one age, through the whole of an¬
other age, and into at least a portion of a third age, in which
case he was many millions of years old when he finally died!

Such a view of course is absurd: and so are the premises
which would necessitate it (1976b, p 18, emp. in orig.).

Whitcomb has explained why these things are true:

...Genesis 2:2 adds that He rested on the seventh day. That
day also must have been literal, because otherwise the sev¬
enth day which God blessed and sanctified would have been
cursed when God cursed the world and cast Adam and Eve
out of the Garden. You see, the seventh day must have end¬
ed and the next week commenced before that Adamic curse
could have come. Adam and Eve lived through the entire sev¬
enth day and into the following week, which is simply a con¬
firmation of the fact that each of the days, including the sev¬
enth, was literal (1973a, 2:64-65).

It also has been suggested that H ebrews 4:4-11, where the writer
speaks of the continuation of God's Sabbath rest, provides support
for the Day-Age Theory. First, I would like to present the passage
in question along with the argument made from it. Then I would like
to offer an explanation of why the passage does not lend credence
to the Day-Age Theory and why the argument based on it is faulty.
H ere is the passage.

For he hath said somewhere of the seventh day on thiswise,

"And God rested on the seventh day from all his works":
and in this place again, "They shall notenter into my rest."
Seeing therefore it remaineth that some should enter there¬
into, and they to whom the good tidings were before preached
failed to enter because of disobedience, he again defineth a
certain day, "Today," saying in David so long a time afterward
(even as hath been said before), "Today if ye shall hear his
voice, H arden notyour hearts." For if J oshua had given them
rest, he would not have spoken afterward of another day.

There remaineth therefore a sabbath rest for the people of
God. For he that is entered into his rest hath himself also rest¬
ed from his works, as God did from his. Let us therefore give
diligence to enter into that rest, that no man fall after the same
example of disobedience.

212

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Day-Age Theory

Here is the argument. Proponents of the Day-Age Theory sug¬
gest that since God's Sabbath Day (the seventh day of the creation
week) continues to this very day, then it follows logically that the
other days of the creation week were long periods of time as well
(see Ross, 1994, pp. 48-49,59-60; Geislerand Brooks, 1990, p.
230). In support of this position, H ugh Ross wrote: "Further infor¬
mation about the seventh day is given in Hebrews 4. ...we learn
that God's day of rest continues” (1994, p, 49).

Wrong! H ere is the correct meaning of the passage. While the text
speaks clearly of the cessation—beginning on the seventh day—of
God's creative activity, that text nowhere suggests that G od's sev¬
enth day has continued from the past into the present, N or does
the passage speak of the duration of the seventh day. Van B ebber
and Taylor have addressed this point.

Like David in the Psalms, the writer of H ebrews is warning
the elect not to be disobedient and hard-hearted. Thus, he
alludes to Israel in the wilderness who because of their hard
hearts could not receive God's promise of rest in Canaan.
"Rest," as used in these verses by both David and the writer
of H ebrews, had a specific historic reference to the prom¬
ised land of Canaan. The H ebrew word used by David for
"rest" was menuwchah, which is a general term for rest
which has a special locational emphasis (e.g., "the rest¬
ing place or abode of resting")[see Brown, etal., 1979,
p. 629 b]. This concept is echoed by the author of H ebrews
who uses the Greek word katapausis, which also may refer
to an abode or location of resting (Hebrews 4:1,3-5,8).

Atthe climax of this passage, the author promises a future
day of rest (H ebrews 4:9, G reek: Sabbatismos). This is the
only time in the New Testament that this word for "rest" is
employed. Itseemsto beadeliberate reference to DaySev-
en of Creation. The author does not say, however, that the
seventh day continues on into the future. H e uses Sabbatis¬
mos without an article (like saying a Sabbath, rather than the
Sabbath). In Greek, this grammatical structure would gener¬
ally represent the character or nature of Day Seven, without
really being Day Seven. That is, the context makes it clear
that the future day of rest will be similar to the original sev-

213

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Day-Age Theory

enth day. The task will be complete: we will live with Christ
eternally—our work on earth will be done (1996, pp. 72-73,
emp., parenthetical, and bracketed items in orig.).

The passage in H ebrews is using the essence of the seventh day
of creation to refer to the coming essence of heaven—i.e., a place
of rest. It is not speaking about the actual length of that seventh day.
Furthermore, the fact that God has not been involved in creative
activity since the close of day six says absolutely nothing about the
duration of the individual days of creation. When God completed
the creation, H e "rested”—but only from H is work of creation.
H e is very much at work now—but in H is work of redemption, not
creation. J esus H imself said: "M y Father worketh even until now"
(I ohn 5:17). While it is correct to say that God's rest from creative
activity continues to this very hour, it is not co rrect to say that FI is
Sabbath Day continues. That was not the point the FI ebrew writer
was trying to make, and to suggest that it was represents either a mis¬
understanding or misuse (or both) of the passage.

God was not saying, via the FI ebrew writer, that FI e wanted to
share a literal Sabbath Day's rest with FI is creation. Rather, FI e was
saying that FI e intended to enjoy a rest that was typified by the Sab¬
bath Day's rest. The Israelites who rebelled against God in the wil¬
derness were not able to share either a "rest" by entering into the
physical presence of the promised land or a "rest" by entering into
the eternal presence of God. Lenski commented on the text as fol¬
lows:

The point lies in taking all these passages together.
The rest from which the] ews of the Exodus were excluded.
Into which we are entering. Is God's rest, the great Sabbath
since the seventh day, of course not of the earthly days and
years that have rolled by since then and are still continuing
but the timeless, heavenly state that has been established and
Intended for men In their glorious union with God.

These are not different kinds of rest: the rest of God since
creation and a future rest for dispeople: ora rest Into which
men have already entered and one that has been established

214

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Day-Age Theory

since the redemptive work of J esus, into which they are yet to
enter; ora rest "attheconciusion of the history of mankind."

The seventh day after the six days of creation was a
day of twenty-four hours. 0 n this day God did not create.

Thus God made the first seven-day week (Exod. 20:8-11;
31:12-17), and the Sabbath of rest was "a sign" (v. 17) so
that at every recurrence of this seventh day Israei might note
the significance of this sign, this seventh day of rest being a
type and a promise of the rest instituted for man since the
days of creation. Like Canaan, the Sabbath was a type and a
promise of this rest (1966a, pp. 132-133, emp. added).

Additionally, even if it could be proven somehow that the seventh
day of creation were longer than the others (which it cannot), that still
would establish only one thing—that the seventh day was longer.
It would say absolutely nothing about the length of the other six days.
And concerning those days, the Bible could not be any clearer than
it is in explaining their duration of approximately twenty-four hours.
Genesis 1 defines them as periods of "evening and morning" (1:5,
8,13,19,23,31). While God's activity within each literal day may
have been miraculous, there is nothing miraculous about the length
of the days themselves. They were, quite simply, the same kinds of
"days" that we today enjoy. Attempts to reinterpret the message of
H ebrews 4 do not alter that fact.

I would like to offer those who are enamored with the Day-Age
Theory the following challenge (as set forth by Fields) for serious
and thoughtful consideration:

It is our conclusion, therefore, that the Day-Age Theory is im¬
possible. It is grammatically and exegetically preposterous.

Its only reason for existence is its allowance for the time need¬
ed by the evolutionary geology and biology. We would like
to suggest two courses of action for those who so willingly wed
themselves to such extravagant misinterpretations of the Scrip¬
ture: either (1) admit that the Bible and contemporary uni-
formitarian geology are at odds, reject biblical creation, and
defend geological and biological evolution over billionsof
years: or (2) admit that the Bible and contemporary uniformi-
tarian geology are at odds, study all the geological indications
of the recent creation of the earth, accept the implications

215

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Day-Age Theory

of N oah's flood, and believe the recent creationism of the B i-
ble. One must choose either the chronological scheme of uni-
formitarianism or the chronological scheme of the B ibie, but
the inconsistencies of this sort of interpretation of the
Hebrew text for the purpose of harmonizing mutually
exclusive and hopelessly contradictory positions can
no longer be tolerated (1976, pp. 178-179, emp. in orig.
except for last sentence).

216

Chapter 9

The Bible and the Age of
the Earth—

The Gap Theory

I n recent years, the D ay-A ge T heo ry has fallen on hard times.
N umerous expositors have outlined its shortcomings, and have
shown that it is without lexical or exegetical support. It has failed ut¬
terly to secure the goals and objectives of its advocates—i.e., the in¬
jection of geological time into the Genesis account in a biblically and
scientifically logical manner, with the subsequent guarantee of an
ancient Earth, Therefore, even though it still has retained its popu¬
larity within limited circles, it has been rejected by many old-Earth
creationists, theistic evolutionists, and progressive creationists.

Yet the Bible believer who nevertheless desires to accommodate
his theology to the geologic ages, and to retain his belief in an old
Earth, somehow must fit vast time spans into the creation account
of Genesis 1. As I explained earlier, there are but three options. The
time needed to ensure an old Earth might be placed: (a) during the
creation week; (b) before the creation week; or (c) after the creation

2/7

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Gap Theory

week. I have documented, in my review oftheDay-AgeTheoryin
the previous chapter, that the geologic ages cannot be placed into
the biblical text duri ng the creation week, I now would like to ex¬
amine the suggestion that they may be inserted before the creation
week.

For over 150 years, those Bible believers who were determined
to insert the geologic ages into the biblical record of origins, yet who
realized the inadequacy of the Day-Age Theory to accomplish that
task, have suggested that it is possible to place the geologic ages be¬
fore the creation week using what is referred to most commonly as
the Gap Theory (also known by such synonyms as the Ruin-and-
Reconstruction Theory, the Ruination/ Re-creation Theory, the Pre-
Adamic Cataclysm Theory, and the Restitution Theory).

M odern popularity of the G ap Theory generally is attributed to
the writings of Thomas Chalmers, a nineteenth-century Scottish
theologian. Ian Taylor, in his book. In the M inds of M en, provided
this summary:

An earlier attempt to reconcile geology and Scripture had
been put forward by another Scotsman, Thomas Chalmers,
an evangelical professor of divinity at Edinburgh U niversity.

He founded the Free Church of Scotland, and because of
his outreach to the poor and destitute he later became known
as the "father of modern sociology." Traceable back to the
ratherobscure writings of the Dutchman Episcopius(1583-
1643), Chalmers formed an idea, which became very pop¬
ular and is first recorded in oneof his lectures of 1814: "The
detailed history of Creation in the first chapter of Genesis
begins at the middle of the second verse."* Chalmers went
on to explain thatthefirststatement, "In the beginning God
created the H eavens and the Earth and the Earth was with¬
out form and void and darkness was on the face of the deep,"
referred to a pre-Adamic age, about which Scripture was es¬
sentially silent. Some great catastrophe had taken place, which

* See: Chalmers, Thomas (1857), "Natural Theology," In William Alanna, ed,. Select
Works of Thomas Chalmers (Edinburgh, Scotland: Thomas Constable), volume five
of the twelve volume set.

218

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Gap Theory

lefttheearth "withoutform and void" orruined, in which state
it remained for as many years as the geologist required. Fi¬
nally, approximately six thousand years ago, the Genesis ac¬
count continues, "The spirit of God moved upon the face of the
waters." The remaining verses were then said to be the account
of how this present age was restored and all living forms, in¬
cluding man, created (1984, pp. 362-363).

Through the years, the Gap Theory has undergone an "evolution”
of its own, and for that reason is not easy to define. There are sev¬
eral variations of the theory, and at times its defenders do not even
agree among themselves on strict interpretations. I will define the
theory as many of its advocates have, recognizing that no single defi¬
nition can be all-inclusive or encompass all possible facets of the
theory. A brief summation of the main tenets of the Gap Theory
might be as follows.

The widely held view among G ap theorists today is that the orig¬
inal creation of the world by God, as recorded in Genesis 1:1, took
place billions of years ago. The creation then was despoiled because
of Satan's disobedience, resulting in his being cast from heaven
with his followers. A cataclysm occurred at the time of Satan's re¬
bellion, and is said by proponents of the G ap T heory to have left
the Earth in darkness ("waste and void") as a divine judgment be¬
cause of the sin of Satan in rebelling against God. The world as God
had created it, with all its inhabitants,* was destroyed and left "waste
and void," which, it is claimed, accounts for the myriad fossils pres¬
ent in the Earth. Then, God "re-created" (or "restored")the Earth
in six literal, 24-hour days. Genesis 1, therefore, is the story of an
original, perfect creation, a judgment and ruination, and a re-cre¬
ation. While there are other minor details that could be included, this
represents the essence of the Gap Theory.

This compromise is popular with those who wish to find a place
in Genesis 1 for the geologic ages, but who, for whatever reason(s).

* M any holding to this theory piace the fossils of dinosaurs, so-called "ape-men," and
other extinctforms of life in this gap, thereby hoping to avoid having to expiain them
in the context of God's present creation.

219

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Gap Theory

reject the Day-Age Theory. The Gap Theory is intended to harmo¬
nize G enesis and geology on the grounds of allowing vast periods
of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, in order to account
for the geologic ages. GeorgeH. Pember, one of the earliest defend¬
ers of the Gap Theory, wrote:

Hence we see that geological attacks upon the Scriptures
are altogether wide of the mark, are a mere beating of the
air. There is room for any length of time between the first and
second verses of the Bible. And again; since we have no in¬
spired account of the geological formations we are at liberty
to believe they were developed in the order we find them
(1876, p. 28).

The Scofield Reference Bible,* in its footnotes on Genesis 1:11,
suggested: "Relegate fossils to the primitive creation, and no con¬
flict of science with the Genesis cosmogony remains” (1917, p. 4).
HarryRimmer, in his book. Modern Science and the Genesis Rec¬
ord (1937), helped popularize the Gap Theory. Canadian anthro¬
pologist Arthur C. Custance produced Without Form and Void
(19 70)—the text that many consider the ablest defense of the G ap
Theory ever put into print. George Klingman, in God Is (1929),
opted forthe Gap Theory, as did Robert Milligan in The Scheme
of Redemption (1972 reprint). George DeH off advocated the Gap
Theory in Why We Believe the Bible (1944), and] .D. Thomas,
stated in his text. Evolution and Antiquity, that in his opinion no
one "can prove that itisnottrue, atleastin part" (1961, p. 54).

j ohn N. Clayton has accepted major portions of the Gap Theory,
but has altered it to suit his own geological/ theological purposes.
The end result is an extremely unusual hybrid known as the M od-
ified Gap Theory (see: C layton, 1976b, pp. 147-148; J ackson and
Thompson, 1992, pp. 114-130; Melver, 1988b, 8[3]:l-23; Thomp¬
son, 1977, pp. 192-194; 1999a, 19:67-70).

* First published in 1909, by 1917 the Scofield Reference Bible had placed the Gap
Theory into the footnotes accompanying Genesis 1; in more recent editions, refer¬
ences to the theory may be found as a footnote to Isaiah 45.

220

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Gap Theory

SUMMARY OF THE GAP THEORY
Those who advocate the Gap Theory base their views on sev¬
eral arguments, a summary of which is given here; comments and

refutation will follow.

1. Gap theorists suggest that two Hebrew words in the creation
account mean entirely different things. Gap theorists hold to the
belief that bara (used in Genesis 1:1,21,27) means "to create”
(i.e., ex nihilo creation). Asah, however, does not mean "to cre¬
ate," but instead means "to re-create" or "to make over." There¬
fore, we are told, the original creation was "created"; the creation
of the six days was "made" (i.e., "made over").

2. G ap theorists suggest that the H ebrew verb hayetha (translated
"was” in Genesis l:2)should be rendered "became" or "had be¬
come”—a translation required in order to suggest a change of
state from the original perfect creation to the chaotic conditions
implied in verse 2.

3. Gap theorists believe that the "without form and void" of Gen¬
esis 1:2 (H ebrew tohu wabohu)can refer only to something once
in a state of repair, but now ruined. Pember accepted these words
as expressing "an outpouring of the wrath of God." Gap theo¬
rists believe the cataclysm that occurred was on the Earth, and
was the direct result of Satan's rebellion against G od. T he cata¬
clysm, ofcourse, is absolutely essential to theGapTheory. Isa¬
iah 14:12-15 and Ezekiel 28:11-17 are used as proof-texts to
bolster the theory.

4. Gap theorists believe that Isaiah 45:18 ("God created the earth
not in vain"—H ebrew, tohu; same word as "without form" in
Genesis 1:2) is a proof-text that God did not create the Earth
tohu. Therefore, they suggest. Genesis 1:2 can refer only to a
judgment brought upon the early Earth by God.

5. Gap theorists generally believe thatthere was a pre-Adamic cre¬
ation of both non-human and human forms. Allegedly, j eremiah
4:23-26 is the proof-text that requires such a position, which ac¬
counts for the fossils present in the Earth's strata.

221

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Gap Theory

THE GAP THEORY-A REFUTATION

The above points adequately summarize the positions of those
who advocate the Gap Theory. I now would like to suggest the fol¬
lowing reasons why the Gap Theory should be rejected as false.

1. The Gap Theory is false because of the "mental gymnastics” nec¬
essary to force its strained argumentation to agree with the actual
biblical text. Even Bernard Ramm, who championed the idea of
progressive creationism, found those mental gymnastics a seri¬
ous argument against the theory's unorthodox nature.

It gives one of the grandest passages in the B ibie a most pe¬
culiar interpretation. From the earliest B ibie interpretation this
passage has been interpreted by] ews, Catholics, and Prot¬
estants as the original creation of the universe. In six ma¬
jestic days the universe and all of life is brought into being.

B ut according to Rimmer's view the great first chapter of G en-
esis, save for the first verse, is not about original creation at
all, but about reconstructions. The primary origin of the uni¬
verse is stated in but one verse. This is not the most telling
blow against the theory, but it certainly indicates that some¬
thing has been lost to make the six days of creation anti-cli¬
mactic.... Or, inthewordsofAllis: "Thefirstobjectiontothis
theory is that it throws the account of creation almost com¬
pletely out of balance.... It seems highly improbable that an
original creation which according to this theory brought in¬
to existence a world of wondrous beauty would be dismissed
with a single sentence and so many verses devoted to what
would be in a sense merely a restoration of it" (1954, p. 138,
emp. in orig.).

2. The Gap Theory is false because it is based on a forced, artifi¬
cial, and altogether incorrect distinction between God's creating
(bara)and making (asah). According to the standard rendition
of the Gap Theory, these two words always must mean en¬
tirely different thi ngs. The term bara always must refer to the
act of "creating” (i.e., an "original" creation), while the term asah
can refer only to the act of "making" (i.e., not an original creation,
but something "re-made” or "made over"). A review of the use

222

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Gap Theory

of these two Hebrew words throughout the Old Testament,
however, clearly indicates that quite frequently they are used inter¬
changeably. Morris has commented:

25, H e "made" the animals and creeping things. In verse 26,

God speaks of "making" man in H is own image. The next
verse states that God "created" man in H is own image. No
scientific or exegetical ground exists for distinction between
the two processes, except perhaps a matter of grammatical
emphasis.... Finally, the summary verse (Genesis 2:3)clearly
says that all ofGod's works, both of "creating" and "making"
were completed with the six days, after which God "rested"
(1966, p. 32, emp. in orig.).

The insistence by Gap theorists, and by those sympathetic with
them, that bara always must mean "to create something from
nothing” is, quite simply, wrong. Such a view has been advocated
by such writers as J ohn Clayton* (1990c, 17[4]:7) and H ugh
Ross** (1991, p. 165). Yet Old Testament scholar C.F. Keil,
in his commentary. The Pentateuch, concluded that when bara
appears in its basic form, as it does in Genesis 1,

* The documentation for Clayton’s position will be presented in chapter 12 in an ex¬
amination and refutation of his Modified Gap Theory.

** Ross has stated: "The H ebrew word for 'created,' bara, refers always to divine ac¬
tivity. The word emphasizes the newsness of the created object. It means to bring some¬
thing entirely new, something previously non-existent, into existence" (1991, p, 165,
emp. added).

223

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Gap Theory

conditionally, but is used for the creation of man (ver. 27,
ch. V. 1,2), and of everything new that God creates, whether
in the kingdom of nature (N umbers xvi.30) or of that of grace
(Ex. xxxiv.lO; Ps. li.lO, etc.) [1971,1:47, first emp. in orig.,
last emp. added].

Furthermore, the 0 Id Testament contains numerous examples
which prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that bara and asah
are used interchangeably. For example, in Psalm 148:1-5, the
writer spoke of the "creation” (bara) of the angels. But when Nehe-
miah wrote of that same event (9:6), he employed the word asah
to describe it. In Genesis 1:1, the text speaks of God "creating"
(bara) the Earth. Y et, when Nehemiah spoke of that same event
(9:6), he employed the word asah, When Moses wrote of the "cre¬
ation” of man, housed bara (Genesis 1:27), But one verse before
that, he spoke of the "making" (asah) of man, Moses also used
the two words in the same verse (Genesis 2:4) when he said:
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when
they were created [bara], in the day that] ehovah made [asah]
earth and heaven,"

Gap theorists teach that the Earth was created (bara) from noth¬
ing in Genesis 1:1. But Moses said in Genesis 2:4 that the Earth
was made (asah). Various gap theorists are on record as stating
that the use of asah can refer only to that which is made from
something already In existence. Yet they do not believe that
when M oses spoke of the Earth being "made," it was formed
from something already in existence.

Consider also Exodus 20:11 in this context, Moses wrote: "For
in six days the Lord made [asah] heaven and earth, the sea and
all that in them is, and rested the seventh day." Gap theorists con¬
tend that this verse speaks only of G od's "re-forming" from some¬
thing already in existence. B ut notice that the verse specifically
speaks of the heaven, the Earth, the seas, and all that In them
Is. Gap theorists, however, do not contend that God formed the
heavens from something already in existence. The one verse that
Gap theorists never have been able to answer is N ehemiah 9:6.

224

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Gap Theory

Thou art J ehovah, even thou alone; thou hast made [asah]
heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth
and all things that are thereon, the seas and all that is in them,
and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven wor-
shippeth thee.

The following quotation from Fields will explain why,

...in Nehemiah 9:6 the objects of God's making (asa) include
the heavens, the host of heavens, and the earth, and ev¬
erything contained in and on it, and the seas and ev¬
erything they contain, as well as the hosts of heaven
(probably angels).

Now this is a very singular circumstance, for those who argue
for the distinctive usage of asa throughout Scripture must,
in order to maintain any semblance of consistency, never ad¬
mit that the same creative acts can be referred to by both the
verb bara and the verb asa. Thus, since Genesis 1:1 says that
God created (bara)the heavens and the earth, and Exo¬
dus 20:11 and Nehemiah 9:6 contend that he made (asa)
them, there must be two distinct events in view here. In
order to be consistent and at the same time deal with the ev¬
idence, gap theorists must postulate a time when God not
only "appointed" or "made to appear" thefirmament, the
sun, the moon and stars, and the beasts, but there also
must have been a time when he only appointed the heavens,
the heaven of heavens, the angels (hosts), the earth,
everything on the earth, the sea and everything in the
sea!

So that, while asa is quite happily applied to the firmament,
sun, moon, stars, and the beasts, its further application to ev¬
erything else contained in the universe, and, indeed, the
universe itself (which the language in both Exodus 20:11 and
Nehemiah 9:6 is intended to convey)creates a monstrosity
of interpretation which should serve as a reminder to those
who try to fit Hebrew words into English molds, that to strait-
jacket these words is to destroy the possibility of coherent in¬
terpretation completely! (1976, pp. 61-62, emp. in orig.).

Whitcomb was correct when he concluded:

These examples should suffice to show the absurdities to which
we are driven by making distinctions which God never in-

225

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Gap Theory

tended to make. Forthesakeofvariety andfullnessofex-
pression (a basic and extremely helpful characteristic of H e-
brew literature), different verbs are used to convey the concept
of supernatural creation. It Is particularly clear that whatever
shade of meaning the rather flexible verb made (asah) may
bear In other contexts of the 0 Id Testament, In the context of
Genesis 1 it stands as a synonym for created (bara)[1972,
p. 129, emp. and parenthetical comment in orig.].

3. The Gap Theory is false because, in the context of Genesis 1:2,
there is no justification for translating the verb "was” (H ebrew,
hayetha) as "became.” Gap theorists insist upon such a transla¬
tion, of course, in order to promote the idea that the Earth be¬
came "waste and void” after the Satanic rebellion. Y et usage of
the verb hayah argues against the translation, "The earth became
waste and void” (Genesis 1:2). Ramm noted:

The effort to make was mean became is just as abortive.

The H ebrews did not have a word for became but the verb
to be did service for to be and become. The form of the verb
was in Genesis 1:2 IstheQal, perfect, third person singular,
feminine. A H ebrew concordance will give all the occurrences
of thatform of the verb. A check in the concordance with ref¬
erence to the usage of this form of the verb in Genesis reveals
that in almost every case the meaning of the verb is simply
was. G ranted in a case or two was means became but if in
the preponderance of instances the word is translated was,
any effort to make one instance mean became, especially
if that instance is highly debatable, is very insecure exegesis
(1954, p. 139, emp. in orig.).

4. T he G ap Theory is false because the H ebrew words tohu wabo-
hu do not mean only "something once in a state of repair, but
now ruined.” Gap theorists believe that God's "initial” creation
was perfect, but as a result of a Satanic rebellion became "waste
and void” (tohu wabohu). Whitcomb has addressed this point.

M any B ibie students, however, are puzzled with the statement
in Genesis 1:2 that the Earth was without form and void.

Does God create things that have no form and are void? The
answer, of course, dependson what those words mean. "With¬
out form and void" translate the H ebrew expression tohu wa-

226

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Gap Theory

bohu, which literally means "empty and formless." In other
words, the Earth was not chaotic, not under a curse of judg¬
ment. It was simply empty of living things and without the fea¬
tures that it later possessed, such as oceans and continents,
hills and valleys—features that would be essential for man's
well-being. ...when God created the Earth, this was only the
first state of a series of stages leading to its completion (1973b,
2:69-70).

5. The Gap Theory is false because there is no biblical evidence what¬
soever to substantiate the claim that Satan's rebellion against God
took place on the Earth, much less was responsible for any great
"cataclysm." The idea of a so-called cataclysm that destroyed the
initial Earth is not supported by an appeal to Scripture, as M or¬
ris has explained.

The great pre-Adamic cataclysm, which is basic to the gap
theory, also needs explanation.... The explanation commonly
offered is that the cataclysm was caused by Satan's rebellion
and fall as described in Isaiah 14:12-15 and Ezekiel 28:11-
17. Lucifer—the highest of all God's angelic hierarchy, the
anointed cherub who covered the very throne of God—is pre¬
sumed to have rebelled against God and tried to usurp His
dominion. As a result, God expelled him from heaven, and he
became Satan, the great adversary. Satan's sin and fall, how¬
ever, was in heaven on the "holy mountain of God," noton
earth. There is, in fact, not a word in Scripture to connect Sa¬
tan with the earth prior to his rebellion. 0 n the other hand,
when he sinned, he was expelled from heaven to the earth.

The account in Ezekiel says: "Thou wast perfect in thy ways
from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in
thee. ...therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the moun¬
tain of God; and I will destroy thee, 0 covering cherub, from
the midstofthestonesoffire. Thine heartwas lifted up be¬
cause of thy beauty, thou has corrupted thy wisdom by rea¬
son of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground [or 'earth,'
the same word in Hebrew]" (Ezekiel 28:15-17).*

* I do not agree with Dr. Morris' comments that Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 refer to Sa¬
tan, and his comments are not to be construed as representative of my views (see
Thompson, 1999d), I have left his statements intact, however, to show how that the
alleged "proof-texts" used by Gap theorists (even when they are removed from their
proper context) do not suggest a Satanic cataclysm on Earth.

227

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Gap Theory

There is, therefore, no scriptural reason to connect Satan's
fall in heaven with a cataclysm on earth... (1974a, pp. 233-
234, emp and bracketed material in orig.).

6. The Gap Theory is false because its most important "proof-text"
is premised on a removal of the verse from its proper context. That
proof-text is Isaiah 45:18, which reads:

For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens: God him¬
self that formed the earth and made it; he hath established
it, he created itnotinvain, heformed it to beinhabited.

In their writings, gap theorists suggest the following. Since Isa¬
iah stated that God did not create the Earth tohu, and since the
Earth of Genesis was tohu, therefore the latter could not have
been the Earth as it was created originally in Genesis 1:1. The im¬
plication is that the Earth became tohu as a result of the cata¬
clysm precipitated by Satan's rebellion against God.

The immediate context, however, has to do with Israel, and God's
promises to His people. Isaiah reminded his listeners that just as
God had a purpose in creating the Earth, so H e had a purpose
for Israel. Isaiah spoke of God's immense power and special pur¬
pose in creation, noting that God created the Earth "to be inhab¬
ited"—something accomplished when the Lord created people
in H is image. In Isaiah 45, the prophet's message is that God,
through H is power, likewise will accomplish H is purpose for H is
chosen people. Morris remarked:

There is no conflict between Isaiah 45:18 and the statement
of an initial formless aspect to the created earth in Genesis
1:2. The former can properly be understood as follows: "God
created it not (to be forever) without form; H e formed it to
be inhabited." As described in Genesis 1, He proceeded to
bring beauty and structure to the formless elements and then
inhabitants to the waiting lands.

It should be remembered that Isaiah 45:18 was written many
hundreds of years after Genesis 1:2 and that its context
deals with Israel, not a pre-Adamic cataclysm (1974a, p. 241,
parenthetical item in orig.).

228

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Gap Theory

7. The Gap Theory is false because it cannot be reconciled with
God's commentary—made at the conclusion of H is six days of
creative activity—that the whole creation was "very good."

Genesis 1:31 records God's estimate of the condition of this
world at the end of the sixth day of creation. We read that "God
saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very
good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."

If, in accordance with the gap theory, the world had already
been destroyed, millions of its creatures were buried in fossil
formations, and Satan had already become as it were, the god
of this world, it is a little difficult to imagine how God could
have placed Adam in such a wrecked world, walking over the
fossils of creatures that he would never see or exercise domin¬
ion over, walking in a world that Satan was already ruling.

Could God possibly have declared that everything H e had
made was very good? In other words, the text of Scripture
when carefully compared with this theory creates more prob¬
lems than the theory actually solves (Whitcomb, 1973b, 2:68-
69, emp. added).

8. The Gap Theory is false because of God's plain statement that
the Earth and all things in it were made in six days. Wayne J ack-
son has stated: "The matter can be actually settled by one verse,
Exodus 20:11a: 'for in six days] ehovah made heaven and earth,
the sea, and all that in them is....' If everything was made within
six days, then nothing was created priorto those six days!" (1974,
p. 34, emp. in orig.).

9. The Gap Theory is false because it specifically implies the death
of humankind on the Earth priorto Adam and Eve. Pember be¬
lieved that the fossils (which he felt the Gap Theory explained)
revealed death, disease, and ferocity—all tokens of sin. H e sug¬
gested:

Since, then, the fossil remains are those of creatures ante¬
rior to Adam, and yet show evident token of disease, death,
and mutual destruction, they must have belonged to another
world, and have a sin-stained history of their own (1876, p.

35).

229

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Gap Theory

In making such a statement, however, Pember has leveled a se¬
rious charge against the Word of G od—a charge that deserves
intense scrutiny.

The idea that the death of humankind occurred prior to Adam's
sin contradicts N ew Testament teaching that indicates the death
of humankind entered this world as a result of Adam's sin (1 Co¬
rinthians 15:21; Romans8:20-22; Romans5:12).Theapostle
Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 15:45 that Adam was "the first man.”
Y et long before Adam—if the Gap Theory is correct—there ex¬
isted a pre-Adamic race of men and women with (to quote Pem¬
ber) "a sin-stained history of their own." But how could Paul, by
inspiration of God, have written that Adam was the first man
if, in fact, men had lived, sinned, and died before him? The simple
fact of the matter is that Paul and the Gap Theory cannot both be
correct.

A word of caution is in order here, however. Allow me to explain.
As certain creationists have opposed both organic evolution and
its religiously based cousins, theistic evolution and progressive
creation, they have pointed out (correctly) that evolution not only
is by definition a purely natural process, but also one that works
via natural selection and survival of the fittest in a world where
(to quote the famous British poet Lord Tennyson) "nature is red
in tooth and claw." Those responsible for defining and defend¬
ing the General Theory of Evolution have admitted as much. Ear¬
lier in this book, I quoted H arvard U niversity's eminent evolution¬
ist, George Gaylord Simpson, who wrote: "Evolution is a fully
natural process, inherent in the physical properties of the uni¬
verse, by which life arose in the first place, and by which all living
things, past or present, have since developed, divergently and
progressively" (1960,131:969, emp. added). I also quoted the
renowned evolutionary philosopher of science, David H ull, who
observed that the evolutionary process is "rife with happenstance,
contingency, incredible waste, death, pain and horror" (1991,
352:486).

230

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Gap Theory

Creationists have noted (again, correctly) that God's creative acts
were not those of happenstance, contingency, and incredible
waste. Rather, they were acts of deliberate, purposeful, intelligent
design on the part of an omnipotent Creator, But in their attempts
to oppose evolution and to make the case for the biblical account
of origins, some creationists (who no doubt are well intentioned)
have misinterpreted, and thus misapplied, the teachings of two
important N ew Testament passages. The first of those passages
is Romans 5:12-14.

Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world,
and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men,
for that all sinned: for until the law sin was in the world: but
sin is not imputed when there is no iaw. N evertheiess death
reigned fromAdam untii Moses, even over them that had not
sinned after the iikeness of Adam's transgression, who is a
figure of him that was to come.

The second passage is 1 Corinthians 15:20-22:

B ut now hath C hrist been raised from the dead, the firstfruits
ofthemthatareasieep. For since by man came death, by
man came aiso the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam
aii die, so aiso in Christ shaii aii be made aiive.

The portions of these two verses (shown in bold type) that are
emphasized by certain creationists stress the fact that death only
entered the world because of man. The argument set forth,
therefore, is as follows. Evolution suggests that there were billions
of years of "happenstance, contingency, incredible waste, death,
pain, and horror" (to use Dr, Hull's exact words). Contrariwise,
the B ibie states quite specifically that death did not exist until Adam
and Eve sinned against God. The evolutionary scenario, there¬
fore, is apodictically impossible-regardless of whether the evolu¬
tion being advocated is that found in atheistic (organic) evolution,
theistic evolution, or progressive creation. Each requires vast eons
of time, during which, so we are told, nature was viciously and
uncaringly culling out evolutionary dead-ends and witnessing ex¬
tinctions that resulted from the deaths of untold thousands of spe¬
cies of plants, animals, and "hominoids."

231

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Gap Theory

In addressing this point, creationist Henry M, Morris wrote:

Perhaps the most serious problem is theological. If we accept
the geological ages at all, in effect we are saying that God
used the methods and processes which exist in the present
world to finally bring into the world the goal and culmination
of H is creative activity—man. This means, therefore, that at
least a billion years of struggle, suffering, disorder, disease,
storm, convulsions of all kinds, and, above all, death troubled
the world before man ever entered the world and before any
sin appeared in the world. The B ibie, on the other hand, teach¬
es quite emphatically that there was no suffering or death
in the world until after sin came in. Romans 5:12 declares,
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and
death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all
have sinned."

Death bysin—there was no death in the world until sin was
introduced. The present groaning, struggling creation of which
we read in Romans dates B ibiically from the time of the great
curse God put on creation because of Adam's sin. So the
whole creation now is underthe bondage of corruption and
decay and death because of man's sin. B ut if the concept of
the geological ages is correct, there were geological ages and
over a billion years of death in the world before any sin entered
the world. Therefore, God must have used the principle of de¬
cay, suffering, and disorder. This is not the God revealed in the
Bible—a merciful God, a gracious God, a God of order and
power, not a God of confusion, random change and chance
(1973, 3:72-73, emp. added).

In his book, Man: Ape or Image—The Christian's Dilemma, cre¬
ationist J ohn Rendle-Short wrote:

Sin entered the world through one man, Adam. Death also
entered the world through Adam. There had been no sin
or death previously.... It may even be argued that the
plants did not die before Adam. Eating the fruit or foliage of
plants does not kill them.... |T]he death of a plant is of a dif¬
ferent order from death ofan animal.... [Plantsareon a par
with the basic earth, of lesser worth than animals.... [Plants
are not "living" and so cannot die as an animal does. That
they were eaten by animals and man before the Fall is quite
consistent with the statement that there was no death....

232

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Gap Theory

Death and dying are always against nature, the God-given
order of things. Especially would this have been so before
the Fall, at a time when God declared everything to be "very
good" (1984, pp. 139,148,149, firstemp. added, lastemp.
in orig.).

Another well-known creationist, Ken H am, devoted a section of
his 1987 book. The Lie: Evolution, to "No Death Before Adam's
Fall." He wrote:

The Bible clearly teaches that death, particularly the physi¬
cal and spiritual death of man, entered the world only after
the first man Adam sinned.... But what about the animals?

Was death a part of the created animal world? There are a
number of reasons why I believe animal death as well
as human death did not occur before the Fall.... Before
sin came into the world, death wasn't even a question—God
had total control of the creation and sustained it 100 percent.

There was no corruption or decay. Hence, death wasn't even
a possibility.... Death and bloodshed came into the world as a
judgmentfrom God for man's rebellion. But at the same time
death was the very means by which man was redeemed. So
bloodshed could not have existed before man's fall. There was
no bloodshed before Adam sinned: everything was perfect
and death was not a part of animal existence (1987, pp.
137-138,139, emp. added).

Thirteen years later, in his book. Did Adam Have a Bellybut-
ton?, M r. H am repeated the same sentiments (2000, pp. 16-17,
24,88-89,91,149)

Are the conclusions of these creationist authors—that there was
absolutely no death of any kind prior to Adam and Eve's sin
—correct? And even more important, are they scriptural? The an¬
swers are "No" and "No." To say that there was no human
death prior to the Fall of man is to make a perfectly biblical state¬
ment. The passages in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 make that
crystal clear. H owever, using those same scriptures to suggest that
not even plants or animals could die ignores the specific context
of each of the passages and is a serious abuse of the texts under
consideration.

233

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Gap Theory

Paul's presentation in Romans 5:12-14 and 1 Corinthians 15:20-
22 had nothing whatsoever to do with the death of either plants
or animals. Rather, an examination of the passages reveals that,
i n the context, he was discussing only the death of humans
—which resulted from the tragic events that occurred in the Gar¬
den of Eden. N otice his specific phraseology, not only in Romans
chapter 5, but even continuing into chapter 6. The inspired apos¬
tle spoke of: (a) "if by the trespass of the one the many died, much
more did the grace of God, and the gift by the grace of the one
man, J esus Christ, abound unto the many" (5:15); (b) "much more
shall they that receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of
righteousness reign in life through the one, even J esus C hrist"
(5:17); (c)"as through one trespass the judgment came unto all
men to condemnation; even so through one act of righteousness
the free gift came unto all men" (5:18); (d) "as through the one
man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through
the obedience of the one shall the many be made righteous” (5:
19); (e) "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that
grace may abound? God forbid" (6:1-2); (f) "Let not sin there¬
fore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey the lusts
thereof" (6:12); and (g)"l speak after the manner of men;...
ye were servants of sin,., .but now being made free from sin and
become servants to God” (6:19-20,22).

Notice the terms (in bold type) that Paul used in his discussion
of the fact of, punishment for, and salvation from sin. H e spoke
of "the many,” "they,” "all men," mankind's "mortal body," and
"after the manner of men." Who, exactly, is represented by such
terms? Surely, words and phrases such as these cannot have ref¬
erence to plants and animals, but must instead refer solely to hu¬
man beings. Furthermore, neither plants nor animals can sin; on¬
ly humans are capable of committing such a travesty by revolting
against their M aker. 0 niy humans are recipients of the "gift by the
grace of...j esus Christ" (5:15). Only of humans may it be said
that "the many shall be made righteous" (5:19).

234

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Gap Theory

Sin and death came on man by man (notice especially Paul's
comment in Romans 5:12 that "death passed unto all men”).
AnthropologistArthurC. Custance correctly observed: "[l]t seems
clearly intended by the record in Genesis that death was in no
sense inevitable for Adam" (1976, pp 145-146, emp, added).
But, why was it not inevitable? The simple fact is that the suspen¬
sion of man's demise was provided by his continually having ac¬
cess to the tree of life that stood in the midst of the G arden (G en-
esis2:9; 3:22). However, as Custance went on to remark: "Adam
surrendered his potential immortality..." (p. 146). Thus Paul was
constrained to say: "Through one man sin entered into the world,
and death through sin" (Romans 5:12). Yet it must not be over¬
looked that the fateful promise of imminent death that resulted
from having violated God's law was made to Adam and Eve,
not to the rest of the creation (Genesis 2:17). Custance there¬
fore lamented: "[l]n the very day that he ate, that day the process
of dying began. Thenceforth it was merely a question of time"
(p. 150)-which explains why we read in Genesis 5:5 that "all the
days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and
he died."

When, then, did death and decay begin to occur in the natural
(i.e., non-human) world? In an article titled, "WasThere Death
Before Adam?," Trevor Major addressed this point.

This is difficult to answer from Scripture because its special
concern is for the fate of man—the only being created in the
image of God (Genesis 1:26-27). Perhaps plants and animals
began to die from the momentof their creation. There is every
suggestion that grass, fruit trees, birds, sea creatures, cattle,
insects, and other organisms functioned quite normally even
in the creation week. In this period they began to grow and
to reproduce, so why could they not also begin to die and de¬
cay, as is the fate of all living things? (1990, 2[7]:2).

In his book, God'sTime Records in Ancient Sediments, Dan
Wonderly agreed when he suggested:

235

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Gap Theory

We of course agree that both spiritual and physical death in
the human race originated with the tragic event of Adam's
sin. But the beginning of death in the animal and plant king¬
doms is simply not mentioned in any of the Scripture pas¬
sages having to do with man's sin; nor is the time of the be¬
ginning of such death given in any other place in the B ibie.

...M an was given the privilege of eating the fruits of the gar¬
den, and we certainly must assume that the "beasts of the
field" and the "fowls" likewise supplied themselves with food
from the garden. Thus we are led to the conclusion that the
supply of the biological needs of animals and of man was
basically the same in the Garden of Eden before the fall of
man as it is today (1977, pp. 236,237).*

Some might object, however, thatGenesis 1:31 records that "God
saw everything H e had made, and, behold it was very good." As
Rendle-Short opined: "Death and dying are always against na¬
ture, the God-given order of things. Especially would this have
been so before the Fall, at a time when God declared everything
to be "very good" (1984, p, 149, emp, in orig.). The question
then becomes: "H ow could something be 'very good' if there was
death and decay in the natural world?" This seeming problem
is solved quite easily, however, if we recognize that, at times, what
we prefer to label as "good" is not necessarily what God consid¬
ers good. [Recall God's statement via the prophet Isaiah: "Formy
thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways"
(Isaiah 55:8).]As Clifford Wilson put it: "If it were not for the prin¬
ciple in nature of life continuing through death, all life would soon
be extinct.... Sometimes we must reassess our ideas on the basis
of newly discovered facts. Is it 'good' to kill a mosquito, a spider,
a snake?.... Remember, too, the Lord said to Peter, 'Rise, Peter,
kill and eat' (Acts 10:13)" [1975, p. 34, emp, in orig.]. Wonderly
went on to observe:

* While I wholeheartedly agree with Wonderly’s conclusion that plant and animal death
occurred prior to the Fall, I strongly disagree with the position he takes in his book
that the Earth itself is ancient, with an age measured in billions of years rather than
thousands (see Thompson, 1999b).

236

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Gap Theory

Actually, we should not be surprised that the regular death
of even complex organisms was Included In the "way of life"
before the fall of man. God created the whole animal king¬
dom, and much of the plant kingdom, with dependence upon
the Intake of food for the production of energy: and that
food Is always organic material produced by cells. In nearly
all cases these cells which provide food for man and other
organisms must die, either before being eaten or soon after¬
wards, as they are digested. Even mostofthefungl and bac¬
teria are dependent upon cellular organisms which have died,
to provide their food for energy and growth. In fact, some
kinds of fungi and bacteria are equipped with mechanisms
to produce strong enzymes which digest the living cells of
plants and animals which are their food. Thus If death were
not a part of the original world of living organisms, then the
entire basis of their lives would have had to be different from
any principle known on the earth today. B ut, as we have seen,
such a difference Is not In keeping with the Genesis account
of life In the Garden of Eden (1977, p. 237, emp. In orig.).

If God has established something as the "natural order of things,"
then: (a) by definition it qualifies as "good"; and (b) who are we
to suggest otherwise? Furthermore, if we ask, "How could some¬
thing be good if it involves death and decay?" this begs the ques¬
tion by assuming that the normal operation of the natural world,
including death and decay, is not "good."

Consider also the indefensible position in which a person finds
himself when he asserts that there was absolutely no death of
any kind prior to the Fall. As Major concluded:

[Tjo insist that neither death nor decay existed in the non¬
human world before the sin of man, is to ask for special plead¬
ing. What of bacteria, adult butterflies, and other creatures
that measure their longevity in terms of hours or days? What
of the luckless ant that is trodden on by an elephant, or the
fly which wanders into a spider's web? These creatures lived
in a world governed by natural laws instituted by God during
H is creation. It is unnecessary to propose that God acted dur¬
ing this time like a machine, constantly intervening at every
level to ensure the eternal preservation of all creatures until
thatterrible day when sin came into the world (1990,2[7]:2).

237

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Gap Theory

Each of us should remember the adage that "a text removed
from its context becomes little more than a pretext,” Especially
is this true when Scripture is involved. Paul's statements in Ro¬
mans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 about sin having entered the hu¬
man race deal with exactly that in their original context—the en¬
trance of sin among humans. While God's statement to Adam
that "cursed is the ground for thy sake” (Genesis 3:17) informs
us that man's sin ushered in certain drastic disadvantages for the
animal and plant kingdoms, the statement, in and of itself, nei¬
ther says nor implies that simultaneously this was the beginning
of death among nature's non-human inhabitants. Wonderly prop¬
erly summarized the problem associated with taking the position
that there was no death prior to Adam and Eve's sin.

The fact of the eating of plant materials in the Garden of
Eden is readily admitted by all. Since plants are living organ¬
isms, with living cells similar to those of animals, there is no
question but that the terms"life" and "death" are appropri¬
ate in speaking of them. Thus when man, the beasts, and the
birds ate and digested plant materials, they were bringing
about the death of living organisms. This fact is intensified when
we realize that seeds contain young, living embryos: so when
Adam and Eve ate nuts and seeds they were killing the young
embryos within those seeds.... It is not possible for us as fi¬
nite human beings to say that death in the animal world was
notin the original, good plan of God, but that death in the
plant world was in his plan. Who are we to say that plants
and animals are less "alive" than animals? Plants can carry out
some activities which animals cannot. Their cells are highly
complex; and many plants produce motile reproductive cells
—and even some motile non-reproductive cells—which swim
about by means of flagella just as actively flagellated proto¬
zoans of the animal world.

Also, the death of small animals must have been a regular oc¬
currence in the Garden of Eden. It is difficult to conceive of
the hoofed mammals roaming the fields day after day with¬
out crushing beetles and worms with their hoofs. And how
could any sheep or cow pluck grass from the earth without
eating the microscopic sized insects and mites which live on

238

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Gap Theory

the blades and upper roots of the plants? Beyond this, how
could such animals drink large quantities of water from
streams and pools without Ingesting many tiny aquatic ar¬
thropod animals? It should also be remembered that such
tiny Insects and mites are not Insignificant specks, but that
there Is only one phylum of animals which Is more complex
than they, namely, the phylum which contains the vertebrates.

Each such tiny Insect Is equipped with a complex nervous
system, well-developed eyes, an elaborate respiratory system,
a chemically efficient excretory system, etc....

The same wisdom of God which led Him to ordain that plant
life would serve as food for certain organisms could certainly
have ordained that certain animals would also serve as food.

For example, when God created the kinds of whales which live
on microscopic organisms (as the blue whale), H e surely fore¬
saw that as they dashed through the water scooping up plank¬
tonic organisms their diet would Include many kinds of tiny
crustaceans which are very complex animals. C rustaceans be¬
long to the same phylum as Insects and have a degree of or¬
ganization very similar to that of Insects. Even If we might say
that these whales may have originally eaten seaweed, we
would have to remember that a vast number of these tiny crus¬
taceans are found In among and clinging to the branches of
the seaweed (1977, pp. 236-237,238, emp. In orig.).

Wilson was correct when he stated simply but emphatically: "Only
for man was death the direct result of his fall and expulsion from
the Garden of Eden" (1975, p. 33).

But some will ask: "What about obviously carnivorous animals?
Were they carnivorous from the beginning, or did they become
carnivorous after the sin and subsequent curse of man?" There
can be no doubt that all animals were created by God initially
to be herbivorous. Early in the book of Genesis we read:

And God said, "Behold, I have given you every herb yield¬
ing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every
tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it
shall be for food: and to every beast of the earth, and to
every bird of the heavens, and to everything that creepeth
upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every
green herbforfood."Anditwasso (1:29-30, emp. added).

239

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Gap Theory

Later, however, after the Fall of man, there are indicators that
not only were animals killed by man—at first for clothing (G ene-
sis 3:21) and later for sacrifice (G enesis 4:4)-but that the animals
themselves had become carnivorous. When God surveyed the sit¬
uation immediately prior to the G reat Flood, the text indicates
that "God saw the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; forall flesh
had corrupted their way upon the earth. And God said unto
Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is fil¬
led with violence”' (Genesis 6:12-13, emp, added). Some con¬
servative Bible scholars have suggested the commentary that "all
flesh had corrupted their way" so that the Earth was "filled with
violence" may well signify that animals already had become car¬
nivorous bythe time God sent the Flood. [Of course, after the Flood
God gave humans permission to eat meat as well (Genesis 9:3),
but noted that "the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon
every beast of the earth, and upon every bird of the heavens" (9:
2), indicating a permanent change in man's relationship to the
Earth's animals.]

The issue also has been raised about how animals that, at pres¬
ent, seem well equipped only for a carnivorous existence might
have survived in the pre-Flood world at a time when they were
forced to exist solely as vegetarians (a concept plainly taught in
Genesis 1:29-30). Wonderly has responded to such an inquiry as
follows:

There is, however, one problem which seems to be particu¬
larly bothersome to us, concerning the existence of violence
and death in the animal world. This is the pattern of behavior
and way of life of the carnivorous mammals. The seemingly
ruthless capturing of other mammals, and even of human be¬
ings by carnivores appears to be—and perhaps is—contrary
to what we believe concerning God's original creation. So we
are quite willing to say that the carnivorous mammals may
have begun their ruthless hunting of other animals only af¬
ter the fall of man.... If the specialized flesh-tearing teeth of the
carnivores make us wonder if they did not possess an instinct

240

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Gap Theory

for ruthless hunting as soon as they were created, we should
consider the possibility that in earlier times their diet was re¬
stricted to invertebrate animals (insects and sea-shore ani¬
mals), and to fruits and other plant materials which their teeth
could handle. After all, many carnivores even now eat large
amounts of such foods. For example, cats eat grasshoppers:
bears often eat fruit and honey: and raccoons eat corn, nuts,
and other fruits, and even leaves and grasses (1977, pp. 239-
240, parenthetical item in orig.).

Rendle-Short wrote in agreement:

I readily agree it is difficult to see how certain creatures could
ever have been solely vegetarian. Their whole anatomy and
mode of life now seems adapted for catching prey. My reply
must be, firstly, as biologists study the problem it becomes ob¬
vious that many so-called carnivores can easily live on a purely
vegetarian diet—the domestic dog or cat for example. Teeth ap¬
parently designed to tear prey can also be used to tear tough
vegetable fibre (1984, p. 147).

Furthermore, at times the "specialized" traits and characteristics
that we think, at first glance, make animals better adapted to a
certain activity, climate, or habitat turn out not to inure such an
advantage after all. J oseph Dillow acknowledged this problem
in discussing the giant, wooly mammoths whose frozen remains
have been found in the Arctic regions.

The mammoth was endowed with a fur coat and a wooly ov-
ercoat25 cm. long. This is generally taken as proofthatthe
mammoth was well adapted to cold. H owever, the presence
of fur or hair is not necessarily an indication of protection
against cold. Consider, for example, the hairy mountain Ma¬
laysian elephant that inhabits a tropical region today. The Su¬
matran elephant from Burma, R. lasiotis, has a thick hair cov¬
ering on its belly and legs, a hairy tail, and bristles at the end
of its ears. In fact, thick fur means nothing, as many animals
of the equatorial jungles, such as tigers, have thick fur (1981,
p. 338).

Whereas one would think that a tiger's thick fur would equip it
to live in an area of the world where the average temperature is
low, quite the opposite is the case. Although in possession of an

241

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Gap Theory

impressive, thick fur coat, it nevertheless lives quite comfortably
in the tropical to subtropical regions of the M iddle East. Other ex¬
amples could be cited at length. For generations, we were taught
that Arctic animals enjoyed protection from the frigid tempera¬
tures and waters of their icy environments as a result of thick, sub¬
cutaneous layers of fat that endowed them with remarkable sur¬
vival skills. But, once again, what at first glance appeared to be
the case turned out not to actually be the case. In a scholarly trea¬
tise on the body insulation of a variety of A retie mammals and
birds, Scholander and co-authors wrote:

Except for a thermally insignificant localized fat pad on the
rump of the reindeer and caribou, none of the mammals (ex¬
cept the seals) has any significant layer of subcutaneous fat
or blubber. Subcutaneous fat is a heavy and poor insulator
compared to fur and does not seem to play any role at all in
the insulation of terrestrial arctic animals (1950, p. 226; see
also Krause, 1978, p. 92).

Thus, even though certain animals possess traits (e.g., razor-sharp
teeth and powerful claws) that appear to be best suited for car¬
nivorous pursuits, the exact opposite may well be the case. The
characteristics that we thought equipped them for one activity ac¬
tually may have equipped them for something quite different.
Last, but certainly not least, what about Paul's statement in Ro¬
mans 8:20-22: "For the creation was subjected to vanity, not of
its own will, but by reason of him who subjected it, in hope that
the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of cor¬
ruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God. For
we know thatthe whole creation groaneth and travaileth
in pain together until now" (emp. added). Some have suggested
that this particular passage from the pen of the apostle teaches
that no creatures died before the Fall of Adam and Eve. But is
that what the passage is saying? No, it is not.

There are two important areas of this passage that must be ex¬
plored. First, we must examine the context within which the apos¬
tle placed his comments. Second, we must study to ascertain

242

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Gap Theory

the meaning of the phrase "the whole creation," The context of
the passage is this. Paul affirms that "the sufferings of this pres¬
enttime are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall
be revealed to us-ward" (8:18). In verses 19-23, he then contin¬
ues by acknowledging that while the creation once was subjected
to vanity, it now is waiting for "the revealing of the sons of God,”
at which time that creation "shall be delivered from the bondage
of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God"
(8:21). The apostle concluded by reminding Christians, who pos¬
sess the "first-fruits of the Spirit,...groan within ourselves, wait¬
ing for our adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body" (8:23).

While the passage certainly is brimming with eternal comfort, it
also contains some admittedly difficult material, not the least of
which is Paul's reference to the fact that "the whole creation"
anxiously awaits deliverance from the "bondage of corruption,"
What does he mean by his phrase, "the whole creation"? Vari¬
ous writers have documented the reasons why the phrase "the
whole creation" cannot apply to such things as, for example, un¬
redeemed humanity or some kind of alleged millennial material/
physical realm (see] ackson, 1990c, 26:25). But what, then, does
Paul mean by his use of this intriguing phrase? In investigating this
matter, Trevor Major responded as follows:

What does Paul mean by "creation?" This word is translated
from the Greek noun ktisis—a term meaning the act of cre¬
ation, or the product of that creative act. Forexample, J esus
referred to the act when H e used the phrase "from the begin¬
ning of the creation" (Mark 10:6:13:19), and Paul referred
to the product when he wrote that the G entiles "served the
creature rather than the Creator" (Romans 1:25). However,
the product of creation does not always encompass every
single part of the creation, whether human, plant, animal, or
non-living matter. In Mark 16:15, j esus instructed His disci¬
ples to "preach the gospel to the whole creation." No one
would suggest that) esus wanted the Gospel taken to human
and non-human inhabitantsof the world alike. Rather, "the
whole creation" in Mark is equivalent to Matthew's "all the na-

243

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Gap Theory

tions" (28:19), and refers to all people everywhere In the
world. Hence, could not "the whole creation" In Romans 8:

22 apply solely to man?

Further, notethe way In which the word "creation" Is used
In the verses preceding Romans8:22. Verse 19 states that
the creation waits "for the revealing of the sons of God,"
andverse21 says that the creation "Itself also shall be deliv¬
ered from the bondage of corruption Into the liberty of the
glory of the children of God." On the one hand, the creation
has suffered at the whims of men. H Is selfishness and greed
have despoiled the Earth, and his unrepentant sin brought a
destructive flood on the land and Its creatures. 0 n the other
hand. It Is hard to Imagine how C hristlans would receive any
comfort knowing that plants and animals would be delivered
from their "bondage" Into the same "liberty of glory of the chil¬
dren of God." Nonetheless, It seems more consistent to equate
this "whole creation" with Intelligent beings because, as Pe¬
ter writes In his second epistle, the physical creation must It¬
self look forward to obliteration by fervent heat and with great
noise (3:10). The world of plants, animals, and Inanimate
matter Is not Included In the plan of redemption. 0 niy In a met¬
aphorical sense can It look forward to the deliverance of the
children of God (1990, 2[7]:1).

It thus seems that Romans 8:19ff. is referring not to the inani¬
mate creation or merely to members of the animal and/ or plant
kingdoms, but rather to intelligent beings who were suffering for
their faith and who, as children of God, could look forward to
their resurrection and glorification, Paul's discussion of "the cre¬
ation” in this passage and in others of a similar import (e.g., Ro¬
mans 1:20-21), offers evidence aplenty of the fact that God's con¬
cern over H is handiwork never wanes. The psalmist recorded H is
testimony to that effect when he wrote:

H ear, 0 my people, and I will speak; 0 Israel, and I will tes¬
tify unto thee: I am God, even thy God.... Every beast of the
forest Is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. I know
all the birds of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field
are mine...the world Is mine, and the fulness thereof (Psalm
50:7-12).

244

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Gap Theory

Perhaps it was such heart-rending passages as Psalm 50 and
Romans 8 that caused British theologian D, Martin Lloyd-J ones
to write:

M any people seem to think that the sole theme of the B ibie
is man's personal relationship with God.... This is a central
theme...but it is not the only theme.... Ultimately the main
message of the Bible concerns the condition of the world
and its final destiny: you and I as individuals are part of a
larger whole. T hat is why the B ibIe starts with the creation of
the world, ratherthan thatof man (1953, p. 5, emp. in orig.).

An in-depth study of God's Word, and of God's world, makes for
a terribly fascinating human enterprise. As we study, however,
we must make sure never to impose our wants and wishes upon
the text, but rather to let the text speak to us instead. It is admi¬
rable that certain B ibie believers are desirous of defending the
biblical account of creation and opposing the concept of organic
evolution and its theistic cousins. But to suggestthat Romans 5
and 1 Corinthians 15 teach that nothing died prior to the Fall
of man weakens the creationists' case and inflicts serious dam¬
age on the actual meaning of these pristine biblical passages. The
biblical account of creation does need to be defended. A nd the
theory of evolution does need to be opposed. B ut not via a mis¬
interpretation and misapplication of God's Word. Two wrongs
do not make a right.

God has placed the defense of H is Word into the hands of men
and women who have been instructed to teach it so that all who
hear it might have the opportunity to obey it and be saved. Paul com¬
mented on this when he wrote: "B ut we have this treasure in earth¬
en vessels, that the exceeding greatness of the power may be of G od,
and not from ourselves" (2 Corinthians 4:7). The thrust of the apos¬
tle's statement was that the responsibility of taking the Word of God
to a lost and dying world ultimately has been given to mortal men.
B ut the power is not in the men; rather, it is in the message! This,
no doubt, accounts for the instructions Paul sent to Timothy in his

245

The Bible and the Age of the Earth—
The Gap Theory

second epistle when he urged the young evangelist to "give dili¬
gence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that need-
eth notto be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth” (2
Timothy 2:15, emp, added).

Considering the fact that we, as God's "earthen vessels," have
been made the instruments through which God offers to a lost and
dying world reconciliation through H is Son (| ohn 3:16), the apos¬
tle's admonition is well taken. Surely it behooves us to "handle aright"
so precious a commodity as the Word of G od. The salvation of our
own souls, and the souls of those we instruct, depends on the ac¬
curacy of the message.

In 1948, at the Winona Lake School of Theology, a graduate
student, Malcolm Henkel, writing a master's thesis on "Fundamen¬
tal Christianity and Evolution," polled 20 leading Hebrew scholars
in the U nited States, asking them if there were any exegetical evi¬
dence of a gap interpretation of Genesis 1:2. They unanimously re¬
plied—No! (Henkel, 1950, p. 49). Nothing in this regard has changed
since 1948.

246

Chapter 10

■‘e

The Bible and the Age of
the Earth-
Biblical Genealogies

A ttempts to place the time necessary for an ancient Earth
during the creation week (i.e., the Day-Age Theory) have
proven unsuccessful. Similarly, attempts to insert the time necessary
for an old Earth before the creation week (i.e., the Gap Theory) al¬
so have failed. Subsequently, the suggestion has been made that per¬
haps geologic time might be placed after the creation week of Gen-
esis 1.

Those willing to offer such a suggestion, however, have been few
and far between because of a major obstacle in the biblical record
to such a compromise. As every student of the Sacred Scriptures is
aware, the B ibie contains lengthy genealogies. That these records
play a vital role in biblical literature is clear from the amount of space
devoted to them in God's Word. Furthermore, they provide a tre¬
mendous protection of the text via the message they tell. That mes¬
sage is this: man has been on the Earth since the beginning,
and that beginning was not very long ago.

247

The Bible and the Age of the Earth-
Biblical Genealogies

As I pointed out in chapter 7, while genealogies (and chronolo¬
gies) serve various functions in the literature of Scripture, one of their
main purposes is to show the historical connection of great men to
the unfolding of J ehovah's redemptive plan. These lists, therefore,
form a connecting link from the earliest days of humanity to the com¬
pletion of God's salvation system. In order for them to have any ev
idential value, the lists must be substantially complete.

In the introduction to this book, I made the point that the in¬
spired writer of H ebrews, in contending for the heavenly nature of
C hrist's priesthood, argued that the Savior could not have functioned
as a priest while H e was living upon the Earth since God had a le-
vitical priesthood to accomplish that need (H ebrews 8:4). J esus
did not qualify for the levitical priesthood for "it is evident that our
Lord hath sprung out ofj udah" (H ebrews 7:14, emp. added). I
then asked: H ow could it have been "evident" that] esus Christ was
from the tribe of J udah—unless there were accurate genealog¬
ical records by which such a statement could be verified?
T he writer of H ebrews based his argument on the fact that the read¬
ers of his epistle would not be able to dispute the ancestry of C hrist
due to the reliable nature of the J ewish documentation available—
i.e., the genealogies.

Yet some Bible believers—determined to incorporate evolution¬
ary dating schemes into G od's Word—have complained that the bib¬
lical genealogies may not be used for chronological purposes be¬
cause they allegedly contain huge "gaps" that render them ineffec¬
tive for that purpose. Donald England has suggested, for example:
"Furthermore, it is a misuse of B ibiical genealogies to attempt to
date the origin of man by genealogy” (1983, p. 155). J ohn Clayton
advocated the same view when he wrote: "Any attempt to ascribe
a specific or even a general age to either man or the Earth from a
Biblical standpoint is a grievous error" (n.d.[a], p. 3). Clayton also
stated: "The time of man's beginning is not even hinted at in the B i-
ble. There is no possible way of determining when Adam was cre¬
ated" (n.d.[b], p. 2).

248

The Bible and the Age of the Earth-
Biblical Genealogies

In so commenting, most authors reference (as does Clayton)
nineteenth-century author, William H, Green (1890), whose writ¬
ings on the genealogies are accepted uncritically—and acclaimed
unjustifiably—by those who wish to insert "gaps” (of whatever size)
into the biblical genealogies. Thus, we are asked to believe that the
genealogies are relatively useless in matters of chronology.

H owever, these same writers conspicuously avoid any exami¬
nation of more recent material which has shown that certain por¬
tions of Green's work either were incomplete or inaccurate. And
while references to the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 are com¬
monplace, discussions of material from chapter 3 of Luke's Gos¬
pel appear to be quite rare. T wo important points bear mentioning
in regard to genealogical listings. First, to quote Custance:

We are told again and again that some of these genealogies
contain gaps: but what is never pointed out by those who lay
the emphasis on these gaps, is that they only know of the
existence of these gaps because the B ibie elsewhere fills them
in. H ow otherwise could one know of them? B ut if they are
filled in, they are not gaps at all! Thus, in the final analysis
the argument is completely without foundation (1967, p. 3).

If anyone wanted to find gaps in the genealogies, it certainly would
have been Dr. Custance—who spent his entire adult life searching
for a way to accommodate the B ibIe to an old-Earth scenario. Y et
even he was forced to admit that arguments alleging that the ge¬
nealogies contain sizable gaps are unfounded.

Second—and this point cannot be overemphasized—even if
there were gaps in the genealogies, there would not nec¬
essarily be gaps in the chronologies therein recorded. The
issue of chronology is not the same as that of genealogy.
This is a critical point that has been overlooked by those who sug¬
gest that the genealogies are "useless” in matters of chronology.
The "more recent work” mentioned above that documents the ac¬
curacy of the genealogies is from] amesB. j ordan, who reviewed
Green's work and showed a number of his arguments to be un¬
trustworthy. T 0 quote j ordan:

249

The Bible and the Age of the Earth-
Biblical Genealogies

Gaps in genealogies, however, do not prove gaps in chro¬
nologies. The known gaps all occur in non-chronological ge¬
nealogies. Moreover, even if there were gaps in the geneal¬
ogies of Genesis 5 and 11, this would notaffect the chrono¬
logical information therein recorded, for even if Enosh were
the great-grandson of Seth, it would still be the case that Seth
was 105 years old when Enosh was born, according to a sim¬
ple reading of the text. T hus, genealogy and chronology are
distinct problems with distinct characteristics. They ought not
to be confused (1979/ 1980, 2:12).

U nfortunately, many who attempt to defend the concept of an
ancient Earth have confused these two issues. For example, some
have suggested that abridgment of the genealogies has occurred and
that these genealogies therefore cannot be chronologies, when, in
fact, exactly the opposite istrue-asj ordan's work has documented.
M atthew, as an illustration, was at liberty to arrange his genealogy
of C hrist in three groups of 14 (making some omissions) because
his genealogy was derived from more complete lists found in the
0Id Testament. In the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, remem¬
ber also that the inclusion of a father's age at the time of his son's
birth is wholly without meaning unless accurate chronology was in¬
tended. Else why would the H oly Spirit have provided such "irrel¬
evant" information?

U nfortunately, there can be little doubt that some have painted
an extremely distorted picture for their audiences and/ or readers
by suggesting that substantial "gaps" can be found within the bib¬
lical genealogies. J ust such a distorted picture results, for example,
when it is suggested that genealogy and chronology are one and the
same problem, for they most certainly are not. P lus, there are other
important considerations. Observe the following information in chart
form. Speaking in round figures, from the present to J esus was ap¬
proximately 2,000 years—a figure obtainable via secular, historical
documents. From] esus to Abraham also was around 2,000 years
—another figure that is verifiable historically.

Present to J esus

= 2,000

years

J esus to Abraham

= 2,000

years

Abraham to Adam

= ?

years

250

The Bible and the Age of the Earth-
Biblical Genealogies

The only figure missing is the one that represents the date from
Abraham to Adam, Since we know that Adam was the first man (1
Corinthians 15:45), and since we know that man has been on the
Earth "from the beginning of the creation" (Mark 10:6; cf. Romans
1:20-21), if it were possible to obtain the figures for the length of
time between Abraham to Adam, we then would have chronolog¬
ical information providing the relative age of the Earth (since we
also know that the Earth is only five days older than man—Gene¬
sis 1; Exodus 20:11; 31:17),

The figure representing the time span between Abraham and
Adam, of course, is not obtainable from secular history (nor should
we expect it to be) since large portions of those records were de¬
stroyed in the Great Flood, But the figure is obtainable—via the bibli¬
cal record. Permit me to explain.

First, few today would deny that from the present to J esus has
been approximately 2,000 years, [For our purposes here, it does not
matter whether C hrist is viewed as the Son of G od since the discus¬
sion centers solely on the fact of FI is existence—something that sec¬
ular history documents beyond doubt; see Butt, 2000, 20:1-6,] Sec¬
ond, in Luke 3 the learned physician provided a genealogy that en¬
compassed 55 generations spanning the distance between j esus
and A braham—a time frame that archaeology has shown covered
roughly 2,000 years (see Kitchen and Douglas, 1982, p, 189), Third,
Luke documents that between Abraham and Adam there were on¬
ly twenty generations. Thus, the chart now looks like this:

Presentto J esus = 2,000 years

J esus to Abraham = 2,000 years (55 generations)

Abraham to Adam = ? years (20 generations)

Since G enesis 5 provides the ages of the fathers at the time of the
births of the sons between A braham and Adam (thus providing
chronological data), it becomes a simple matter to determine the
approximate number of years involved. In round numbers, that fig¬
ure is 2,000, The chart then appears as follows.

251

The Bible and the Age of the Earth-
Biblical Genealogies

Present to Jesus = 2,000 years
j esus to Abraham = 2,000 years (55 generations)

Abraham to Adam = 2,000 years (20 generations)*

Some have argued that there are "gaps” in the genealogies (e.g.,
Clayton, 1980a, 7[l]:6-7). But where, exactly, should such gaps be
placed, and how would they help? 0 bserve the following. It is im¬
possible to place any gaps between the present and the Lord's
birth because secular history accurately records that age-informa¬
tion. Similarly, no gaps can be inserted between the Lord's birth and
Abraham because secular history also accurately records that age-
information. The only place one could put any "usable” gaps (viz.,
usable in regard to extending the age of the Earth) would be in the
20 generations between Abraham and Adam. Y et notice that there
are not actually 20 generations available for the insertion of gaps
because] ude stated that "Enoch was the seventh from Adam"
0 ude 14). An examination of the Old Testament genealogies estab¬
lishes the veracity of] ude's statement since, counting from Adam,
E noch was the seventh, j ude's comment thus provides divinely in¬
spired testimony regarding the accuracy of the first seven names
in Luke's genealogy—thereby leaving only 13 generations into which
any alleged gaps could be placed.

In a fascinating article some years ago, Wayne] ackson observed
that in order to accommodate the biblical record only as far back
as the appearance of man's alleged evolutionary ancestor (approx-
imately3.6 million years), one would have to place291,125 years
between each of the remaining 13 generations (1978b, 14[18]:1).
It does not take an overdose of either biblical knowledge or com¬
mon sense to see that this quickly becomes ludicrous in the extreme

* The reader may wonder how 55 generations (| esus to Abraham) could cover 2,000
years while 20 generations (Abraham to Adam) also cover 2,000 years. The answer,
of course, lies in the ages of the patriarchs. Because they lived to such vast ages, few¬
er generations were required to encompass the same number of years. Fora discus¬
sion of the Bible, science, and the ages of the patriarchs, see Appendix 2.

252

The Bible and the Age of the Earth-
Biblical Genealogies

for two reasons. First, who could believe that the first seven of
these generations are so exact—while the last thirteen are so in¬
exact? Is it proper biblical exegesis to suggest that the first seven
listings are correct as written, but gaps covering more than a quar¬
ter of a million years may be inserted between each of the last thir¬
teen? Second, what good would any of this do anyone? AII it would
accomplish is the establishment of a 3.6 million year-old Earth;
old-Earth creationists, progressive creationists, and theistic evolu¬
tionists need a 4.6-billion-year-old Earth. So, in effect, all of this in¬
sertion of "gaps” into the biblical text is much ado about nothing.

And therein lies my point. While it may be true on the one hand
to say that an exact age of the Earth is unobtainable from the in¬
formation contained within the genealogies, at the same time it is
important to note that—using the best information available to us
from Scripture—the genealogies hardly can be extended to any¬
thing much beyond 6,000 to 7,000 years. For someone to sug¬
gest that the genealogies do not contain legitimate chronological
information, or that the genealogies somehow are so full of gaps as
to render them useless, is to misrepresentthe case and distort the
facts.

253

254

The Bible and the Age of
the Earth-

Additional Considerations

T he topic of the B ibie and the age of the Earth often engen¬
ders a great deal of controversy. It also spawns a variety of
claims and counter-claims. Thus, in any discussion of what the Bi¬
ble has to say regarding the age of the Earth, there are several ad¬
ditional considerations that should be examined.

"FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE CREATION"/
"FROM THE CREATION OF THE WORLD"

In M ark 10:6, J esus declared concerning Adam and Eve: "But
from the beginning of the creation, male and female made he
them" (cf. Matthew 19:4). Christ thus dated the first humans from
the creation week. The Greek word for "beginning" is arche, and
is used of "absolute, denoting the beginning of the world and
of its history, the beginning of creation.” The G reek term for "cre¬
ation" is ktiseos and denotes "the sum-total of what God has
created" (Cremer, 1962, pp. 113,114,381, emp. in orig.).

255

The Bible and the Age of the Earth-
Additional Considerations

Bloomfield noted that "creation" in Mark 10:6 "signifies 'the
things created,'the world or universe" (1837,1:197-198). In ad¬
dressing this point, Wayne J ackson wrote:

Unquestionably this language puts humankind atthe very
dawn of creation. To reject this clear truth, one must contend
that: (a) Christ knew the Universe was in existence billions
of years prior to man, but accommodating H imselfto the ig¬
norance of H is generation, deliberately misrepresented the
situation; or, (b)The Lord, living in pre-scientific times, was
uninformed about the matter (despite the fact that H e was
there as Creator—John 1:3; Colossians 1:16). Either of these
allegations is a reflection upon the Son of God and is blas¬
phemous (1989, pp. 25-26, parenthetical comment in orig.).

Furthermore, Paul affirmed the following:

For the invisible things of him since the creation of the
world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things
that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that
they may be without excuse (Romans 1:20, emp. added).

The apostle declared that from the creation of the world the
invisible things of God have been: (a) clearly seen; and (b) perceived.
The phrase, "since the creation of the world," is translated from the
Greek, apo ktiseos kosmou. Asa preposition, apo is used "to de¬
note the point from which something begins" (Arndt and Gingrich,
1957, p. 86). The term "world" is from the Greek, kosmos, and
refers to "the orderly universe" (Arndt and Gingrich, p. 446). R.C.
Trench observed that the kosmos is "the material universe...in
which man lives and moves, which exists for him and of which he
constitutesthe moral centre" (1890, pp. 215-216). The term "per¬
ceived" is translated from the Greek, noeo, which is used to de¬
scribe rational, human intelligence. The phrase "clearly seen" is
an intensified form of horao, a word that "gives prominence to
the discerning mind" (Thayer, 1962, p. 452). Both "perceived"
and "clearly seen" are present tense forms, and as such denote
"the continued manifestation of the being and perfections of God,
by the works of creation from the beginning" (MacKnight, 1960,1:
187).

256

The Bible and the Age of the Earth-
Additional Considerations

Who observed and perceived the things that were made "from
the beginning" of the creation? If no man existed on this planet for
billions of years (because man is a "relative newcomer to the Earth"),
who was observing—with rational, human intelligence—these phe¬
nomena? Paul undoubtedly was teaching that man has existed
since the creation of the world and has possessed the capacity
to comprehend the truth regarding the existence of the Creator; ac¬
cordingly, those who refuse to glorify H im are without excuse (cf.
Psalm 14:1). It is inexcusable for one who professes to believe the
Bible to be God's inspired Word to ignore such verses as these—
or to wrest them to make them say something they never were in¬
tended to say—to defer to evolutionary geology in an attempt to
defend the concept of an ancient Earth, Y et examples of that very
thing are all too prevalent,

During the question and answer session that followed my de¬
bate with J ack Wood Sears on the topic of the Bible and the age
of the Earth (see chapter 7), a querist asked him how he could de¬
fend the concept of an ancient Earth in light of C hrist's statements
in Mark 10:6 and Matthew 19:4 which indicated that "from the be¬
ginning of the creation, male and female made he them," Astonish¬
ingly, Dr, Sears responded by suggesting that neither Mark 10:6 nor
Matthew 19:4 was addressing the creation of the world. Rather,
he insisted, both passages meant "from the time of the creation of
man and woman," What?! Were that the case, these two pas¬
sages then would have the Lord saying: "From the beginning of the
creation (of man and woman), man and woman created he them,”
The Son of God was not in the habit of talking in such nonsensical
terms. Furthermore, Mark plainly wrote about "the beginning ofthe
creation," not "their creation." Christ's point is crystal clear, espe¬
cially when connected to Paul's comment in Romans 1:20-21 that
someone with rational, human intelligence was "perceiving" the
things that had been created. Riegle was right when he suggested:
"It is amazing that men will accept long, complicated, imaginative
theories and reject the truth given to M oses by the C reator FI im-
self" (1962, p. 24).

257

The Bible and the Age of the Earth-
Additional Considerations

"FROM THE BLOOD OF ABEL”

In Luke 11:45-52, the account is recorded of the Lord rebuk¬
ing the J ews of H is day. H e charged them with following in the
footsteps of their ancestors. H e foretold the destruction that was
yet to befall them. And, H e announced that upon them would come
"the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foun¬
dation of the world." Then, with emphatic linguistic parallelism
(which so often is characteristic of H ebrew expression), H e added:
"from the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zachariah...."

J esus therefore placed the murder of Abel near the "foundation
ofthe world." Granted, Abel's death occurred some years after the
creation, but it was close enough to that event for J esus to state that
it was associated with "the foundation of the world." If the world ac¬
tually came into existence several billion years before the first fam¬
ily, how could the shedding of human blood be declared by the Son
of God to extend back to the "foundation of the world"?

Those who opt for an old-Earth scenario believe, of course, that
man is a "recent addition” to the Earth—a "johnny-come-lately" who
has been here only 3 million years or so out of an alleged Earth
historyof4.6 billion years. It is apparent, however, that they are
not obtaining their information from the same divine source as
the prophet Isaiah, who asked the skeptics of his day: "H ath it not
been told you from the beginning? H ave ye not understood from
the foundations of the earth?” (40:21, emp. added). Isaiah un¬
derstood that man had been on the Earth "from the beginning" or,
as he stressed, "from the foundations of the Earth." Sad, is it not,
that so many today who claim to believe the B ibie refuse to acknowl¬
edge that simple, scriptural fact?

HOW LONG WERE ADAM AND EVE
IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN?

On occasion, those who defend an old Earth suggest that it is im¬
possible to know how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden of

258

The Bible and the Age of the Earth-
Additional Considerations

Eden and that untold years may have elapsed during that time pe¬
riod. Consider two popular arguments that frequently are offered
in support of such a theory.

First, J ohn Clayton has suggested that since a part of God's
curse on Eve was that He was going to multiply her pain in child¬
birth (Genesis 3:16), she must have given birth to numerous chil¬
dren in the garden or else God's curse would have meant nothing
to her. How could God "multiply" something if she never had ex¬
perienced it in the first place? Furthermore, Clayton has lamented,
rearing children is a process that requires considerable time, there¬
by allowing for the possibility that Adam and Eve were in the Gar¬
den of Eden for an extended period prior to being evicted after their
sin. As C layton has written: "Every evidence we have biblically in¬
dicates that mankind's beginning in the Garden of Eden was not
a short period which involved one man and one woman” (1980a,
7[1]:5, emp. added).

The second argument (which is somewhat related to the first) sug¬
gests that Adam and Eve must have been in the garden for quite
some time because after they left, it was said of C ain that "he builded
a city" (Genesis 4:17). To quote Clayton, that is something "which
you cannot do with you and your wife" (1980a, 7[1]:5). In other
words, Cain had to have a large enough family to help him build "a
city." That, suggests Clayton, would have taken a lot of time.

M r. C layton is completely in error when he says that "every ev¬
idence we have biblically indicates that mankind's beginning in the
Garden of Eden was not a short period which involved one man
and one woman." The fact is, every evidence we have bibli¬
cally proves conclusively that man and woman could not
have been In the garden for very long. Consider the following.

First, regardless of what defenders of an ancient Earth may wish
were true, the simple fact of the matter is that the Bible sets an
outer limit on the amount of time that man could have lived in the
Garden of Eden. Genesis 5:5 states clearly that "all the days that

259

The Bible and the Age of the Earth-
Additional Considerations

Adam lived were 930 years.” We know, of course, that "days”
and "years” already were being counted by the time of Adam's cre¬
ation because in Genesis 1:14 (day four of creation) God mentioned
both in H is discussion of their relationship to the heavenly bodies.
Therefore, however long Adam and Eve may have been in the gar¬
den, one thing is for sure: they were not there for a time period that
exceeded Adam's life span (930 years). Additionally, a significant
portion of man's life was spent outside the Garden of Eden due to
his sin against God—thereby reducing even further the portion of
the 930 years that could have been spent in the garden setting.

Second, surely it is not inconsequential that al I the children of
Adam and Eve mentioned in the Bible were born outside the Gar¬
den of Eden. Not one conception, or birth, is mentioned as
having occurred while Adam and Eve lived in the garden (see
Genesis4:l for the first mention of any conception orbirth—only
after the couple's expulsion from Eden). Follow closely the impor¬
tance and logic of this argument, which may be stated as follows.

One of the commands given to Adam and Eve was that they
"be fruitful and multiply, and fill the Earth” (Genesis 1:28). [Inter¬
estingly, Isaiah would say many years later that God created the
Earth "to be inhabited” (Isaiah 45:18).] In other words, Adam and
Eve were commanded to reproduce.

But what is sin? Sin is: (a) doing what God said not to do; or
(b) not doing what God said to do. Up until the time that Adam
and Eve ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
(Genesis 3:6), had they sinned? No, they still were in a covenant
relationship with God and everything was perfect. Since that is the
case, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that Adam and Eve
were doing what God had commanded them to do—reproducing.
Y et, I repeat, the only conceptions and births of which we have any
record occurred outside the garden! In other words, apparently
Adam and Eve were not even in the garden long enough for Eve to
conceive, much less give birth.

260

The Bible and the Age of the Earth-
Additional Considerations

Third, while the Bible does not provide a specific time regard¬
ing how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden, it could not have
been very long because Christ H imself, in referring to the curse of
death upon the human family as a result of their sinful rebellion
against God, specifically stated that the devil "was a murderer from
the beginning” (J ohn 8:44). Satan and his ignominious band of
outlaws ("sons of the evil one”—M atthew 13:38) have worked their
ruthless quackery on mankind from the very moment the serpent
met mother Eve in the Garden of Eden, When he and his cohorts
rebelled and "kept not their proper habitation,” they were cast from
the heavenly portals to be "kept in everlasting bonds under dark¬
ness unto the judgment of the great day" (j ude 6).

Satan fought with God—and lost. The devil's insurrection had
failed miserably, and that failure had dire, eternal consequences. H is
obstinate attempt to usurp God's authority cost him his position
among the heavenly hosts. As a result of his rebellion, he was cast
"down to hell” (2 Peter 2:4). In the end, his sedition gained him
nothing and cost him everything. Regardless of the battle plan he
adopted to challenge the C reator of the U niverse, regardless of the
battlefield he chose as his theater of war, and regardless of the num¬
bers or strength of his army, the simple fact of the matter is that—
in the most important contest of his existence—he lost! The con¬
ditions of his ultimate surrender were harsh. Although his armies
had been thoroughly routed, although he had been completely van¬
quished, and although the Victor had imposed the worst kind of
permanent exile, Satan was determined not to go gently into the
night. While he admittedly had lost the war, he nevertheless planned
future skirmishes. Vindictive by nature (Revelation 12:12), in pos¬
session of cunning devices (2 Corinthians 2:11), and thoroughly de¬
termined to be "the deceiver of the world" (Revelation 12:9), he
set his face against all that is righteous and holy—and never once
looked back. H is anger at having been defeated fueled his determi¬
nation to strike back in revenge.

261

The Bible and the Age of the Earth-
Additional Considerations

But strike back at whom? God's power was too great, and H is
omnipotence was too all-consuming (j ob 42:2; 1J ohn 4:4), An¬
other target was needed; another repository of satanic revenge would
have to be found. And who better to serve as the recipient of hell's
unrighteous indignation than mankind—the only creature in the U ni-
verse made "in the image and likeness of God" (Genesis 1:26-27)7
As Rex A. Turner Sr, observed: "Satan cannot attack God directly,
thus he employs various methods to attack man, G od's master cre¬
ation" (1980, p. 89). What sweet revenge-despoiling the "apple
of G od's eye" and the zenith of H is creative genius! Thus, with the
creation of man, the battle was on. Little wonder that in his first epis¬
tle the apostle Peter described Satan as an adversary that, "as a roar¬
ing lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour" (5:8).

N ow—knowing what the Scriptures tell us about Satan's origin,
attitude, and mission—is it sensible to suggest that he would take his
proverbial time, and twiddle his figurative thumbs, while allowing
Adam and Eve to revel in the covenant relationship they enjoyed
with their M aker (G enesis 3:8 relates how G od walked with them
in the garden "in the cool of the day")? Would he simply "leave them
alone for a long period of time” so that they could conceive, give
birth to, and rear children in the luscious paradise known as the Gar¬
den of Eden? Is this how a hungry, stalking lion would view its prey
—by watching admiringly from afar, allowing it hundreds or thou¬
sands of years of fulfilled joy, and affording it time to conceive, give
birth to, and raise a family? H ardly—which is why Christ described
Satan as a murderer "from the beginning," Satan was in no mood
to wait, H e was angry, he was bitter, and he was filled with a thirst
for revenge. What better way to slake that thirst than introducing
sin into God's perfect world?

What may be said, then, about] ohn Clayton's suggestion that
Adam and Eve must have been in the G arden for an extended pe¬
riod of time since God said that H e was going to "multiply” Eve's
pain, H ow could H e possibly "multiply" something she never had
experienced? This quibble can be answered quite easily. Does a

262

The Bible and the Age of the Earth-
Additional Considerations

person have to "experience” something before that something can
be "multiplied"? Suppose I said, "I'm going to give you $100."
Y ou therefore stick out your hand to receive the $100 bill I am
holding in mine. But I immediately pull back my hand and say, "No,
I've changed my mind; I am going to give you $1,000 instead!"
D id you actually have to possess or "experience" the $ 100 bill be¬
fore I could increase it to $1,000? Of course not!

The fact that God said H e intended to "multiply" Eve's pain in
childbirth does not mean necessarily that Eve had to have experi¬
enced some pain before God's decree that she would experience
more pain. God's point was merely this: "Eve, you were going to
experience some pain in childbirth, but because of your sin, now you
will experience even more pain." The fact that Eve never had ex¬
perienced any childbirth pain up to that point does not mean that
she could not experience even more pain later as a part of her pen¬
alty for having sinned against God.

Last, what about] ohn C layton's idea that Adam and Eve must
have been in the Garden for an extended period of time because
the text indicates that when they left Cain and his wife "builded a
city" (Genesis 4:17). Clayton has lamented that this is something
"which you cannot do with you and your wife" (1980a, 7[1]:5).
Of course he would be correct—if the city under discussion were a
modern metroplex. But that is not the case here.

The H ebrew word for city is quite broad in its meaning. It may
refer to anything from a sprawling village to a mere encampment.
Literally, the term means "place of look-out, especially as it was
fortified." In commenting on Genesis 4:17, Old Testament com¬
mentator] ohn Willis observed: "However, a 'city' is not neces¬
sarily a large, impressive metropolis, but may be a small unimpos¬
ing village of relatively few inhabitants" (1979, p. 155). Again, ap¬
ply some common sense here. What would it be more likely for the
Bible to suggest that Cain and his wife constructed (considering who
they were and where they were living)-a thriving, bustling, metrop¬
olis, ora Bedouin tent city. To ask is to answer, is it not? To this

263

The Bible and the Age of the Earth-
Additional Considerations

very day, Bedouin tent cities are quite commonplace in that par¬
ticular area of the world. And—as everyone will admit—two boy
scouts can erect a tent, so it hardly strains credulity to suggest that
likely Cain and his wife were able to accomplish such a task as
well.

THE DOCTRINE OF APPARENT AGE

On occasion, the comment is overheard, "But the Earth looks
so old.” There are at least two responses that might be made to
such a statement. First, one might ask: "Compared to what; what
does a young Earth look like?" Who among us has anything with
which to compare? Second, we should not be surprised if certain
methods in science appear to support the idea of an ancient Earth.
Why? The answer lies in what has been called the "doctrine of ap¬
parent age" (also known as the "doctrine of mature creation").

This concept states that when God made "heaven, and earth,
the sea, and all that in them is" (Exodus 20:11), they were made
perfect, complete, and ready for habitation by mankind and the
multiple forms of plant and animal life. God did not create imma¬
ture forms (although H e certainly could have done so, had H e de¬
sired), but mature ones. Rather than creating an acorn, for exam¬
ple. He created an oak. Ratherthan creating an egg. He created a
chicken. Ratherthan creating Adam and Eve as infants or young chil¬
dren, H e created them as post-pubescent beings. We know this to
be true because one of the commands G od gave each living thing
shortly after its creation was that it should reproduce "after its kind."
This very command, in fact, was given to Adam and Eve while they
still were in the Garden of Eden, prior to their sin and expulsion.

H ow old were Adam and Eve two seconds after their creation?
They were two seconds old. H ow old were the plants and ani¬
mals two seconds after their creation? They were two seconds
old. Buthowoldall these two-seconds-old people, plants, and ani¬
mals look like they were? Trevor Major has commented:

264

The Bible and the Age of the Earth-
Additional Considerations

So Adam, for example, had the look and thecapablllty of a
full-grown man on the first Sabbath, even though he had
lived only one day. T hus, according to the doctrine of mature
creation, all living things were created In a mature state, with
onlytheappearance ofage (1989,27[10]:16, emp. Inorig.).

It is important to realize that the initial creation had two ages—a
literal age, and an apparent age. Itliterally may have been just
one day old, two days old, three days old, and so on. But it ap¬
peared to be much older.

The biblical record provides additional information concerning
the accuracy of the doctrine of apparent age. In Genesis 1:14, God
told M OSes that the heavenly bodies (e.g.. Sun, M oon, stars) were
to be "for signs and for seasons, for days and for years.” In order for
the heavenly bodies to be useful to man for the designation of signs,
seasons, days, and years, those heavenly bodies must have been
visible. Thus, when God created them H e made their light already
visible from Earth, The psalmist exclaimed: "The heavens declare the
glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handiwork" (19:1).
There was, therefore, a specific purpose behind God's mature cre¬
ation.

First, the Earth was prepared in a mature state so that man would
find it suitable for his habitation, C hrist specifically stated that man
and woman had been on the Earth "since the beginning of the cre¬
ation” (Matthew 19:4; Mark 10:6). Thus, it was necessary that "from
the beginning" the Earth be "finished." Second, once man found him¬
self in such a home (called "very good"-denoting complete perfec¬
tion-in G enesis 1:31), it was only right to give honor and glory to
the Creator Who designed and built such a magnificent edifice. This
explains why Paul, in Romans l:20ff., suggested that even God's
"everlasting power and divinity" had been seen by mankind "from
the creation oftheworld,” and whythosewho refused to honorGod
would be "without excuse."

Even the miracles of the B ibie reflect God's frequent use of the
principle we call "apparent age.” During C hrist's first miracle, H e

265

The Bible and the Age of the Earth-
Additional Considerations

transformed water into wine (J ohn 2).* For mere mortals to pro¬
duce wine (alcoholic or not) requires a lengthy process employing
soil, water, grapes, sunshine, etc. Y et J esus accomplished this task
in a matter of minutes, producing what the governor of the wed¬
ding feast termed notjust wine but "good wine” (J ohn 2:10). The
miracle of the feeding of the 5,000 (Matthew 14:13-21)also pro¬
vides evidence regarding the principle of apparent age. The young
boy present on that occasion had but a few loaves and fishes, yet
Christ "multiplied” them and fed over 5,000 men alone. Major ad¬
dressed this concept when he wrote:

Thousands of loaves were distributed for which the barley
had not been sown, harvested, or milled, and which had never
been mixed into dough and baked in an oven. Equally amaz¬
ing, thousands of dried fishes were handed out which nei¬
ther had grown from an egg nor been caught in a fisher¬
men's net. Everything was there in a prepared form, ready
to eat by the recipients of this great wonder.

The miracle of creation was also achieved in a relative instant,
producing an effect which could have only a supernatural
cause. I n the first chapter of G enesis, G od created trees and
grasses, not just their seeds. He created birds which could al¬
ready fly, not eggs or even chicks. He created fish which could
already swim, not fish eggs. He created cattle, not calves. And
He created man and woman, not boy and girl. Speaking to
these animals, and to these people, God commanded: "Be
fruitful and multiply" (1:22,28). Notice that the plants and
animals began to multiply according to their own kind almost
straightaway (1:11,24). Immature organisms could not have
reproduced, and in any case, would have perished in the ab¬
sence of adult forms (1989, 27[10]:16).

The moment God created matter itself, would it not have ap¬
peared "mature”—I.e., as if it already had existed? If God had de¬
cided to create Adam as a baby, how could H e have produced a

* In the New Testament, the Greek term for wine, oinos, is employed to denote both
alcoholic and non-alcoholic grape juice beverages, prohibiting the view that the wine
spoken of in j ohn 2 necessarily was alcoholic.

266

The Bible and the Age of the Earth-
Additional Considerations

baby that did not look like it had gone through a nine-month ges¬
tation period? If H e had created an acorn, how could H e have cre¬
ated an acorn that did not look like it had fallen from a mighty oak?
Did God create the Earth "mature"? Indeed H e did. H ow could H e
have done otherwise?

Frank Lewis Marsh, while serving as a professor of biology at An¬
drews U niversity, was a respected scientist who frequently wrote on
matters relating to creation and evolution. In his book. Life, Man,
and Time, he addressed the subject of apparent age from a biblical
perspective.

Asa help in making a decision here, the Bible believer goes
back to the first two chapters of Genesis. When Adam came
from the hand of the C reator on F riday he had every appear¬
ance of being a mature man at least in his twenties, a man
of marriageable age. Fruit-bearing trees appeared to be at
least several years old. T he great aquatic animals playing in
the waters appeared to be sixty to one hundred years old.

A nd the smoothed landscape with its rounded mountains and
hills, and broad rivers, and with a vegetated layer of fertile soil
over all land areas, from a uniformitarian viewpoint, appeared
to be millions of years old. Nevertheless, no object in this land¬
scape was more than three solar days old. B ecause this land¬
scape had been specially created with an appearance of age,
even the most careful application by Adam of his physical
senses and his reasonable mind to the problem of age of the
landscape could only lead to the wrong conclusion. It is of
great importance to recognize here that Adam could notcar-
ry on an open-minded study of the age of the landscape and
necessarily arrive atthe truth about it. In order to please God
and know the truth about natural things he had to place spe¬
cial revelation above natural revelation. One wonders what
testimony would have been given by the radioactive time-
clocks at the close of C reatio n W eek. W ould it be unreaso n-
able to assume that the minerals of the earth as well as its or¬
ganic forms may have been created with an appearance of age?

From past events we learn that even regarding points in
natural science, special revelation must supersede nat¬
ural revelation if the truth is to be known on those points.

With regard to duration since Creation Week, the Bible tells

267

The Bible and the Age of the Earth-
Additional Considerations

us that only a few thousand years have elapsed. To the Bi¬
ble believer this means that the various timeclocks which sug¬
gest greater ages than this are not to be depended upon re¬
gardless of how coercive or compulsive the evidence may ap¬
pear to be. Because ofthe manner ofthe earth's origin, Adam
could not acceptthe data furnished by natural processes when
It came to the age of the landscape.

In like manner the Bible believer today who walks the same
earth Adam walked, except for an unnatural destruction and
redepositlon of Its surface since Creation, depends upon Bi¬
ble chronology to reveal the true age ofthe fossil-bearing strata
atthe earth's surface. This record Informs us that duration since
life first appeared on this earth Is to be counted, not In hun¬
dreds of millions but rather In a few thousands of years. In this
day of jumbled talk of millions of years In this earth's history,
the Bible believer faces no dilemma. H Is philosophy may
not be popular but It Is satisfyingly correct. Why? Because God
In H Is providence has supplied In man's Guidebook the very
Information on this planet that he needs In this confused age
(1967, pp. 59,73, first emp. In orig., last emp. added).

0 ne of D r. M arsh's articles on this subject, which appeared in
the Creation Research Society Quarterly, was titled "On Cre¬
ation with an Appearance of Age." Although the following quota¬
tion from that article is somewhat lengthy, I consider its inclusion
in this book essential because it is, in my estimation, a one-of-a- kind,
timeless masterpiece due to the simple-yet-brilliant manner in which
it explains the importance of a proper understanding of the scrip¬
tural principle known as the doctrine of apparent age.

I am ofthe opinion that it is very essential for natural scien¬
tists frequently to meditate on Adam's situation in that early
and perfect world. H e learned the story of origins from the
C reator. To get at the facts let us assume that some time soon
after Adam's creation on Day Six (Gen. 1:27, nasb), the Cre¬
ator said to him, "Adam, look about you. There is not an ob¬
ject in this landscape that is more than three days (evenings
and mornings: 24-hour periods) old." (As far into the week
as the morning of Day Three, no dry land was to be found.

Gen. 1:9.)

268

The Bible and the Age of the Earth-
Additional Considerations

Assume that Adam replied, "Lord you have given me this
wonderful mind and these marvelous physical senses. Now
supposel study this matteropen-mindedly and learn if your
statement is correct."

Assume that Adam began his careful study of age by exam¬
ining his own body. If he were to hypothesize that he had be¬
come mature (of marriageable age, Gen. 1:27) by normal
(to us) growth processes, then he could reasonably conclude
that he had lived at least twenty-five years. If his basic assump¬
tions were correct, then by the agreement of proof from sev¬
eral ways of determining age, such as anatomical structure,
physiological activity, and psychological maturity, he would
"know" that he was more than three days old.

AssumethatAdam continued hisstudy and observed mature
fruit trees (Gen. 1:12) which apparently were several years
old. H e observed great water animals (G en. 1:21) possibly ap¬
parently sixty years old. Heobserved mountains (Gen. 7:19)
and spreading plains with rivers (Gen. 2:10-14), erosion plains
which some think require millions of years to form. If he had
examined trees, I believe he would have found annual rings,
and that if he had dated minerals radioactively it is possible
that apparent ages of even millions of years would have been
found.

After all this careful open-minded study of the Edenic world,
Adam could have returned to the Creator and with great sin¬
cerity said, "Lord, I'm sorry to have to saythis, butthis land¬
scape is much older than you think!"

If ithad been available to him, itisvery likelyAdam could have
had the confirmation of all our most sophisticated modern
scientific apparatus in the matter of great age. Suppose this
apparatus had been available to Adam, and that in making
his report, he had invited the Creator to have a seat, and then
had taken an hour and a half with tables, charts, and photo¬
graphs, showing the agreement of inorganic radioactive time
clocks, of fission-track data, of effects of solar wind in erod¬
ing moon craters, etc., etc., thatour earth had to be at least
four and one-half billion years old. Would the Creator have
been impressed? Would all these data on age of the open-
minded method have constituted natural truth?...

269

The Bible and the Age of the Earth-
Additional Considerations

Why could Adam not believe what he thought he saw on the
subject of age of the landscape? The answer stands clearly
revealed in special revelation (the Bible). Our earth was cre¬
ated, along with the living forms with which it was furnished,
with an appearance of age. Adam's open-minded method
could bring the right answers for innumerable problems, pro¬
vided the phenomenon under study was not compli¬
cated by the factor of geological age. The same situa¬
tion holds for us today....

H ow only can we know the natural truth about the age of our
earth? Adam could learn that truth only by special revelation.

T oday our students of earth science are studying an earth which
came into being unnaturally with an appearance of age.

Some sixteen centuries after that creation the surface of this
earth was utterly destroyed (more here and less over there) by
the unnatural activities of N oah's "Flood." Today it is fair to
ask, H ow is it possible now to determine in natural ways the
age of a surface which was both created and destroyed in un¬
natural ways? I submit the thesis that until man accepts the
necessity of special revelation regarding our natural world, he
will never know the truth out the age of our earth or the origin
of life upon it. My sympathies go out to our young scientists in
this skeptical day. I, as a Bible-believing creationist, associ¬
ated for nine years in a total of four non-church-related univer¬
sities, know from first-hand experience what these young stu¬
dents face. They wish not to be a laughingstock before their
more mature scientific colleagues. B ut in the matter of age de¬
termination each Bible-believing scientist will have to choose
between accepting the untruths which inevitably result from
acceptance of the uniformitarian myth—and thereby enjoy¬
ing the approval of his more mature skeptical colleagues, or
taking the consequences of standing firmly or the truth of the
simple declarations of Genesis.

FI ow strongly the natural man wants to believe everything
he thinks he sees! B ut regarding age, Adam could not do that,
even in a perfect world, and still he, was very happy! Our
own lovefortruth should help usfollow his example (1978,
14[4]:187-188, emp. and parenthetical items in orig.).

Dr, Marsh's assessment is as accurate an assessment of this matter
as I have ever seen, and I believe that we who are Bible believers are
indebted to him for having reminded us of the importance of G od's

270

The Bible and the Age of the Earth-
Additional Considerations

special revelation as presented and preserved in H is Word—even
(especially!) in matters like the age of the Earth that sometimes are
considered scientifically sacrosanct.

H owever, in our discussions regarding the doctrine of apparent
age, we always must be extremely careful not to abuse the concept,
Some have inquired, for example, whether God might have placed
fossils (or, for that matter, fossil fuels) within the Earth simply in or¬
der to make it "appear" ancient. This idea should be rejected for sev¬
eral reasons. First, such a suggestion implies that the formation of
fossils and/ or fossil fuels is an inherently slow, uniformitarian-type
process—which it most certainly is not (see, for example. Major,
1996).

Second, certain geological/ paleontological phenomena provide
some of the best examples available in the world around us of a sud¬
den, global, non-uniformitarian catastrophe (i.e., the Genesis Flood).
When the doctrine of apparent age is invoked in an inappropriate
manner, it robs mankind of powerful testimony to the workings of
the C reator and weakens the similarly powerful testimony of FI is
Word regarding what FI e did and how FI e did it.

Third, the idea that the Creator may have "planted" such things
as fossils and fossil fuels in the Earth is an indictment of the nature
and character of God, Who never would try to "trick" or "fool" man
insuchaway. NorwouldFleeverlien’itusl:2; Flebrews6:18). If
we observe things in the Earth like fossils, fossil fuels, etc., we natu¬
rally (and rightly) assume that these are the results of real plants
and/ or animals that actually lived. It will not do for us to say, "God
just put them there," for such a suggestion makes God deceptive,
which FI e is not. As M ajor has stated: "Tactics of confusion and de¬
ception hardly belong to a Creator Who would have humanity dis¬
cern Flim by FI is creation (Romans 1:20)" [1989, 27[10]:16].

Others have suggested that if God created things that appear
older than they really are, that is deceptive on the face of it. Thus,
by definition the doctrine of apparent age makes G od out to be a
liar and should be rejected on that count alone. FI owever, such an

27 /

The Bible and the Age of the Earth-
Additional Considerations

accusation overlooks the fact that God plainly told us what He
did! Anyone who takes the time to read Genesis 1-2 can see with¬
in those chapters God's methodology. In fact, H e made certain to
tell us exactly how the Earth and its inhabitants came into existence.
Perhaps—just perhaps—if God had not told us in such numbingly
exact terms what H e did, or if H e had not been as specific as H e
was, then someone might be able to accuse H im of deception or
trickery. But no one can accuse God (justifiably) of such despicable
behavior because H is Word adequately explains H is actions. H e did
not hide the facts from us but, quite the contrary, went to great
lengths to reveal them.

Some have suggested that one of the most difficult questions re¬
lating to the doctrine of apparent age has to do with the starlight
that can be seen by those of us here on the Earth. N ormally, the ar¬
gument goes something like this. We understand today that light
travels at a speed slightly in excess of 186,000 miles per second.
[The time it takes light to travel one year is referred to as a light-
year.] Yet we are able to see light from stars that are multiplied mil¬
lions of light-years away. H ow can this be if the Earth is as young as
many creationists suggest—with an age measured in thousands of
years rather than billions? A partial answer to this question, of course,
is that God created the light from heavenly bodies already en route
and visible to the Earth's inhabitants (as a part of H is mature creation).
Without such light, the night sky would lack patterns necessary to
serve as signs, seasons, days, and years specified so clearly in Gen¬
esis 1:14, and mankind would have been unable to see God's "glory
and handiwork" (Psalm 19:1).

Other issues may be involved as well, a treatment of which (e.g.,
the possibility that the speed of light has diminished over time, etc.)
has been provided by various writers (see: N orman and Setterfield,
1987; Major, 1987, 7:5-7; Ex Nihilo, 1984, 6[4]:46; Humphreys,
1994). The reader who is interested in an examination of these mat¬
ters is referred to these sources (and others that they may recom¬
mend). Such a discussion is beyond the purview of this book.

272

The Bible and the Age of the Earth-
Additional Considerations

The doctrine of apparent age not only explains many of the al¬
leged evidences for an ancient Earth, but is entirely scriptural in its
foundations. It helps answer many of the questions relating to data
that evolutionists, and those sympathetic to them, offer as docu¬
mentation for their concept of a planet of great antiquity—which,
in reality, is one of relative youth.

273

274

Miscellaneous
Compromises of the
Genesis Record

PROGRESSIVE CREATIONISM

I n this day and age, it no longer is popular for one who is an
atheist to be called an atheist. The name simply is too harsh,
and carries too many negative connotations. Thus, today atheists
often are referred to euphemistically as humanists or free-think¬
ers. In some instances—though they hold to each and every tenet of
atheism—they even refer to themselves as agnostic in their leanings.

Why the posturing? It is because the name carries a certain con¬
notation; words do have meanings. The same is true in the creation/
evolution controversy. Y ears ago, those who accepted the evolu¬
tionary scenario, in whole or in part, yet who professed a belief in
God, were known simply as "theistic evolutionists." But today that
phrase is considered by many to be too harsh, and to carry too many
negative connotations. And so a new name had to be found—one
that would allow essentially the same beliefs as theistic evolution
(much as agnosticism allows the same essential beliefs as atheism),
yet was not deemed so offensive.

275

Miscellaneous Compromises of the Genesis Record

Thus, the term "progressive creationism” was invented. His¬
torically speaking, the phrase was coined by Bernard Ramm, who
first used it in his influential book. The Christian View of Science
and Scripture, published in 1954 (pp, 76-78). Five years later, two
other terms arrived on the scene, each defending the essence of
Ramm's viewpoint, but giving ita different label. Edward) ohn Car-
nell of FullerTheological Seminary in California spoke of "thresh¬
old evolution" (1959).) amesO. Buswell III, in the book. Evolution
and Christian Thought Today, edited by Russell M ixter, dubbed
it "scientific creationism" (1959).*

For a time, the three phrases—progressive creationism, thresh¬
old evolution, and scientific creationism—were recognized widely
as synonyms, and were used as such in the literature of 1950s and
1960s. In his classic 1969 work. Evolution and Christian Faith,
Bolton Davidheiser wrote:

The position most commonly taken and taught at present by
men of science who profess to be Bible-believing conserva¬
tive Christians (they do not like the word fundamental) goes
by such names as threshold evolution, progressive cre¬
ationism, and scientific creationism. These are essen¬
tially the same thing (p. 174, emp. and parenthetical com¬
ment in orig.).

However, Buswell'sterminology, "scientificcreationism,” eventually
fell into disuse and, as of the writing of this book, no longer is em¬
ployed to refer to either the idea it originally represented or the con¬
cepts of progressive creationism/ threshold evolution (see footnote
below). For the discussion here, therefore, I will use the term "pro¬
gressive creationism."

* Today the terms "progressive creationism" and "threshold evolution" are used inter¬
changeably by advocates of both theories. H owever, the term "scientific creation¬
ism" as suggested by Buswell no longer is used to refer to such concepts. Currently,
the term is used to refer to the view held by strict creationists that the available scien¬
tific evidence supports the creationist position as the correct model of origins. For ex¬
ample, one of the texts quoted in this book is Scientific Creationism by H enry M or¬
ris. That volume is devoted to an examination of much of the scientific evidence sup¬
porting biblical creationism (see also Morris and Parker, 1987).

276

M iscellaneous Compromises of the Genesis Record

What is Progressive Creationism?

Ramm contended that progressive creationism—in form, not in
name—was taught as early as A ugustine. [Fora discussion of how
writers such as Ramm often employ A ugustine in defense of their
theories, see Bromling, 1994,14:53.] Whether that is true or not,
the popular defense and acceptance of progressive creationism ac¬
tually dates from the publication of Ramm's book, When his text
was published, it caused quite a stir. In fact, on the book's dust jack¬
et the publishers expressed their view that the book "marks a his¬
torical point of no return where evangelical C hristian scholars will
no longer in ignorance deprecate the findings of science, but will un¬
derstand them with the advantage of their C hristian perspective.”
Since he was the originator of the phrase, it is only right that Ramm
be allowed to explain its meaning.

In progressive creationism there may be much horizontal ra¬
diation. The amount Is to be determined by the geological rec¬
ord and biological experimentation. But there Is no vertical
radiation. Vertical radiation Is only by flat creation. A root-
species may give rise to several species by horizontal radi¬
ation, through the process of unraveling of gene potentialities
or recombination. H orizontal radiation could account for much
which now passes as evidence for the theory of evolution. The
gaps in the geological record are gaps because vertical pro¬
gress takes place only by creation.

Creation and development are both indispensable
categories in the understanding of geology and biol¬
ogy. The fiat creationist can be embarrassed by a thousand
examples of development. Progression cannot be denied ge¬
ology and biology. The chasms in the order of life can only be
bridged by creation. Biology cannot be rendered totally mean¬
ingful solely in terms of progression. Both Genesis and biol¬
ogy start with the null and void, both proceed from the sim¬
ple to the complex, and both climax with man (1954, p. 191,
emp. in orig.).

In his now-famous text. Unformed and Unfilled, Weston W,
Fields observed:

277

Miscellaneous Compromises of the Genesis Record

It seems that most evangelical scientists today believe that
while God directly created the first life and also the major
stages of life throughout the geologic history (such as the ver¬
tebrates, the birds, the marsupials, the mammals, and man),
nevertheless extensive evolution has taken place over vast ex¬
panses of geologic time within these major created groups of
living things. This view is known as "progressive creationism"
or "threshold evolution" and is often linked with the "day-age"
view (Carnell, Mixter, Ramm, etc.) [1976, p. 167, emp. and
parenthetical items in orig.j.

Davidheiser provided an explanation of how the process is alleged
to have worked, and why it sometimes is referred to by Carnell's
term, "threshold evolution,"

Whereas theistic evolutionists declare that all of evolution is
true but divinely directed, progressive creationists counter
that God performed creative acts along the way, and thus
evolution did not produce all forms of life. That is, certain
forms were created, then changed or evolved, but they could
not go the whole way. Therefore the Lord had to create
again, and so repeated H is creative acts. The Lord had to lift
animals over a threshold, as it were, so that they could start
evolving again in more diversification (1973, 3:51-52, emp.
in orig.).

Thus, progressive creationism is seen as the concept that God
periodically "stepped in" to intervene in the creative process. In
between divine creative acts, however, evolutionary development
(covering billions of years) occurred. H ugh Ross defended this idea
in his text. Creation and Time (1994).* Michael Pitman described
it in these terms: "A creationist is not obliged to embrace 0 Id Tes-
tament fundamentalism; indeed, many believe the creation of life
may have happened in stages, each generating life-forms more
complex than the one before” (1984, p. 238). j ohn H ick, a mod¬
ern-day liberal theologian, said: "I,,.am a creationist in the sense that
I believe that the universe is God's creation, but I believe that

* For additional documentation on H ugh Ross' position as a progressive creationist,
and a refutation of that position, see Van Bebber and Taylor (1996).

278

M iscellaneous Compromises of the Genesis Record

God's creative work is progressive and continuous and that bio¬
logical evolution is a part of it" (1985, 5[4]:40). In other words, God
intervened not just once, but many times along the way to "help bi¬
ological evolution along," This, then, is the essence of progressive
creationism.

Is Progressive Creationism Theistic Evolution?

Is progressive creationism theistic evolution? Considerable con¬
troversy has been generated over the answer to that question, D r.
Ramm, and other proponents of progressive creationism, have
been quick to respond that it is not theistic evolution, and that they
are not theistic evolutionists. In The Christian View of Science
and Scripture, Ramm said of himself:

The author of this book believes in the divine origin of the
B ibie, and therefore in its divine inspiration; and he emphati¬
cally rejects any partial theory of inspiration or liberal or neo¬
orthodox view of the Bible.... The writer is not a theistic
evolutionist.... We accept progressive creationism,
which teaches that over the millions of years of geologic his¬
tory God has been fiatly creating higher and higher forms of
life (1954, pp. 31-32,205,256, emp. added).

Buswell, in his chapter in Evolution and Christian Thought To¬
day, placed anti-evolutionists into three distinct categories. The first
grouping consisted of people whom he called "hypertraditionalists"
—those "bound to rigid interpretations of Scripture [and] who are
loath to accept any new facts which seem to contradict their inter¬
pretations, since these are seen not as interpretations but as literal
teachings of Scripture itself" (1959, p. 188). Buswell's second group
was comprised of "many Roman Catholics and Protestants" who,
he acknowledged, hold to a strict interpretation of theistic evolu¬
tion. In the third category, said Buswell—between the hypertradi¬
tionalists and the theistic evolutionists—is the group that generally
is recognized as "progressive creationists." Of this particular group,
he wrote:

279

Miscellaneous Compromises of the Genesis Record

There are creationists, many of whom have specialized in
onefieldofscienceoranother, orelse, as theologians, have
either taken pains to keep abreast in some measure with sci¬
entific advance, or else have sought the counsel of those who
have, who constantly allow their interpretations to be open
to the acceptance of newly discovered facts, so that the re¬
integration of their position has been free from the contra¬
diction of embracing one body of facts, whether from Scrip¬
ture or from nature, and excluding the other (1959, p. 188).

Ramm divided people in general into four groups.

Atthe risk of oversimplification we may assertfour patterns
of thought in reference to the origin of the universe: (i) fiat
creationism: (ii) progressive creationism; (iii) theistic evolu¬
tion; and (iv)naturalistic evolution. Much of Bible-and-science
has been plagued with an oversimplification as if the only al¬
ternatives were fiat creation or naturalistic evolution. The hy¬
per-orthodox have as a group been very uncharitable toward
both the progressive creationists and theistic evolutionists
(1954, p. 76).

Ramm's separation of progressive creationism and theistic evolu¬
tion into separate categories is not accidental. As Davidheiser re¬
marked: "Those who espouse progressive creationism usually are
quite insistentthattheyare not theistic evolutionists” (1969, p. 175).

But how do progressive creationism and theistic evolution dif¬
fer? Whatever differences exist may be summed up by the statement
that theistic evolutionists embrace the entire evolutionary dogma
(short of spontaneous generation, of course), whereas progressive
creationists allow God somewhat more activity in the process. As
Fields has argued:

Ramm goes to great lengths to show that progressive creation¬
ism is not theistic evolution. But it seems to us that the dif¬
ference is more in extent than kind, whereas true creation¬
ism differs not only in extent but also in kind with evolution
of whatever sort. According to the definition above, which
we feel is accurately representative of the views of prominent
progressive creationists, God used the process of evolution
extensively. Itappearsthat progressive creationists want to
have the benefit of a great amount of evolution (which will

280

M iscellaneous Compromises of the Genesis Record

commend them to secular scientists), as well as benefit of
the name "creationist" (which will commend them to naive
Christians), but the name "creationist" is somewhat misleading
(1976, p. 784, emp. and parenthetical comments in orig.).

Is Progressive Creationism Acceptable?

Experience has shown that those who accept, and defend, pro¬
gressive creationism often come to believe more in evolution and
less in creation as time passes. This does not seem to be the excep¬
tion, but rather the rule. As Davidheiser has concluded:

"Threshold Evolution" leads to much real evolutionary belief.

H ow much evolution do these people accept? 0 ne of the men
says of his belief in progressive creationism that he encoun¬
ters a primary difficulty—he must exercise faith to believe in
a certain amountof creation! Othersadmitthattheir view re¬
quires considerably more evolutionary belief than they would
have been willing to accept a few years previously. In other
words, it leads to evolutionary beliefs and away from creation.

It establishes another compromise which is injurious to the
Christian faith... (1973, 3:52-53).

Is progressive creationism theistic evolution? Both call on God
to start creation. Both accept evolution (in varying amounts). Both
accept the validity of the geologic age system. Both postulate an
old Earth. Where is the difference, except that progressive creation¬
ism allows God "a little more to do”? Both systems put God (theos)
and evolution together. By any other standard that is theistic evo¬
lution. As Niessen has noted:

It is currently fashionable for theistic evolutionists to go by the
name "Progressive Creationists" in order to avoid the popular
resentment in Christian circles against evolution and itsnon-
theistic orientation. In practice, however, both views are es¬
sentially the same. The difference merely concerns the amount
of God's intervention within the evolutionary process (1980,

p. 16).

THE MODIFIED GAP THEORY

M any C hristians today apparently are afflicted with the malady
of "misguided determination.” Please do not misunderstand. Deter-

281

Miscellaneous Compromises of the Genesis Record

mination can be a wonderful thing. It might be responsible for a
new invention, the founding of a college, the building of an empire
—or ten thousand other good and wonderful things. B ut misguided
determination is a blight, not a blessing.

N umerous B ibie believers today have seen the abject failure of
both the Day-Age and Gap theories. Y et they are as determined as
ever to find a way to force evolutionary time, as represented by the
geologic ages, into the biblical text. Their determination thus forces
them to formulate, modify, temporarily accept, and then abandon
theory after theory in search of one that they hope finally will suc¬
ceed. Unfortunately, many Bible believers have not yet come to the
conclusion that the Genesis record is a literal, factual, and defensi¬
ble record of God's method of creation. Rather than accepttheGen-
esis account at face value—as C hrist and H is inspired writers did—
they constantly seek some way to improve upon it by appealing to
one theory after another, in the hope that ultimately they will be able
to force evolutionary time into the biblical record.

In many instances, the resulting "new” theories are little more
than a reworking of the old, discarded theories that long ago were
banished to the relic heaps of history because they could not with¬
stand examination under the intense spotlight of God's Word. 0 ne
such theory making the rounds today is the "M odified Gap Theory."
Because of its popularity in certain quarters, I feel it bears exami¬
nation here.

What is the Modified Gap Theory?

Over the past three decades, one of the most frequently used
lecturers among certain segments of the churches of C hrist has
been j ohn N. Clayton, a self-proclaimed atheist-turned-Christian
who teaches high school science in South Bend, Indiana.* Due to

* I coauthored, with Wayne J ackson, the book, In the Shadow of Darwin—A Review
of the Teachings of J ohn N. Ciayton, which examines Mr, Clayton’s positions on
creation, evolution, and related topics. This review is available from the offices of Apolo¬
getics Press.

282

M iscellaneous Compromises of the Genesis Record

his background in historical geology, Clayton has worked at a fe¬
verish pace to produce an amalgamation between the evolution¬
ary geologic record and the Genesis account of creation. Shortly
after becoming a C hristian, C layton adopted the position of a full-
fledged theistic evolutionist. Later, however, he moved away from
strict theistic evolution to an "off-beat" brand of that doctrine that
reflects what he has called his own "private theology" (see F rancella,
1981). Consequently, he is recognized widely by those who are ac¬
tive in the creation/ evolution controversy as the originator and pri¬
mary defender of what has come to be known as the M odified G ap
Theory (see: Clayton, 1976b, pp. 147-148; Thompson, 1977, pp.
188-194; Melver, 1988b, 8[3]:22; J ackson and Thompson, 1992,
pp. 115-130; Thompson, 1999b, pp. 68-81).

For over thirty years, J ohn Clayton has propagated the view that
the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old—the standard evo¬
lutionary estimate of its age (see Clayton, 1990d, p. 130). Asa re¬
sult, he has struggled to find some possible way by which to accom¬
modate the Genesis account of creation to such a concept. The Mod¬
ified Gap Theory is his proposed solution. FI ere, in his own words,
is how his M odified G ap Theory attempts to make such an accom¬
modation possible.

Genesis 1:1 Is an undated verse. No time element Is given and
no details of what the Earth looked like are Included. It could
have taken place In no time at all, or God may have used
eons of time to accomplish his objectives. I suggest that
all geological phenomena except the creation of warm¬
blooded life were accomplished during this time. There
was no way God could have described amoebas, bacteria,
viris [sic], or dinosaurs to the ancient FI ebrew, and yet these
formsof life were vital to the coal, oil and gas God knew man
would need. Thus God created these things but did not de¬
scribe them just as FI e did not describe a majority of the 110
million species of life on this planet. C hanges took place in
the Earth (but no gap destruction) until God began the for¬
mation of man's world with birds, whales, cattle and man in
the literal days of Genesis (Clayton, 1976b, pp. 147-148,
emp. added, parenthetical comment in orig.).

283

Miscellaneous Compromises of the Genesis Record

J ohn C layton has worked on this concept for most of his adult
life, and along the way has polished, altered, "tweaked,” and re¬
vised it in order to make it fit whatever new scientific data happen
to be in vogue at the time. H e has included it in his lectures, de¬
fended it in his bi-monthly journal (Does God Exist?), and advo¬
cated it in various other ways throughout his career. In lesson nine
of his 1990 Does God Exist? Correspondence Course, for exam¬
ple, he elaborated on how the Modified Gap Theory works.

N ot only does the first verse give us the creation of celestial
objects, but of a functional earth itself.... By the end of
Genesis 1:1 there was a functional, living, working earth. If
you had stood upon the earth atthis point in time, you would
have recognized it. Let us once again remind you that how
long God chose to use to accomplish this creation is not re¬
vealed in this passage.... It is very possible that a living eco¬
system operated in Genesisl:! to produce the earth. Bac¬
teria may have swarmed in the oceans and giant plants may
have lived in great swamps. D inosaurs may have roamed free¬
ly accomplishing their purpose in being. The purpose of all
of this would have been to prepare the earth for man. This
living ecosystem would have produced the coal, oil, gas, and
the like, as well as providing the basis of man's ultimate food
supply! (1990a, pp. 3,4, emp. added).

Thus, in capsule form, Clayton suggests that when the Bible says
God "created,” what it really means isthatGod, over eons of time,
"prepared" an Earth for man. Further, God did not create every¬
thing to exist on that "first" Earth. For example, according to the
Modified Gap Theory there were no warm-blooded creatures. And,
since man is warm-blooded, naturally, he was not there either, C lay-
ton has written:

I submittoyouthatGenesisl:! is not a summary verse. It is
a record ofGod'saction which produced an Earth ready for
man's use. I further submit for your consideration that some
time may be involved in this verse and that natural
processes may have been used as well as miraculous
ones to prepare the Earth for man (1982,9[10]:5, emp. ad¬
ded).

284

M iscellaneous Compromises of the Genesis Record

M r. C layton has provided an explanation as to why, according to
his theory, man was not a part of this original creation,

The week described in Exodus refers to the week described
in Genesis 1:5-31. The week in Genesis 1:5-31 describes the
creation of man and a few forms with which man is familiar,
but it is not a total description of every living thing that does
[sic] or ever has existed on Earth (1976a, 3[10]:5-6, emp. in
orig.).

Exodus 20:11 explicitly affirms that everything that was made
by God was completed within the six days of the initial week,
Clayton begs to differ with both God and His inspired writer Mo¬
ses, and instead asserts that many things actually had been created
(during vast epochs of time) long before the creation week ever start¬
ed. Since, as I already have discussed, Clayton does not believe that
Exodus 20:11 refers to all of the creative activity of God, but in¬
stead refers only to that which occurred in Genesis 1:5-31, he has
suggested that Moses "avoids the creation question and con¬
centrates on his own purpose” (1976a, 3[10]:5, emp, added). Put
into chart form by Clayton himself, the Modified Gap Theory ap¬
pears as you see it below.

CREATION

JUDGMENT

RESOURCE

ECOSYSTEM

EARTH

AMOEBA

CHRONOMETRY

SUN

BACTERIA

SET UP

TIME MOON

WATER PLANTS

GEN. 1:14-19

GEN. 1:20-28

ADAM NOW

MATTER STARS

DINOSAURS

CREATION WEEK

CHRIST

GALAXIES

ETC.

BIRDS

WATER MAMMALS

MAMMALS

MAN

PRECAMBRIAN

MESOZOIC 1

CENOZOIC ±

Summary of J ohn Clayton's Modified Gap Theory

285

Miscellaneous Compromises of the Genesis Record

A Response and Refutation

Whenever] ohn Clayton is challenged regarding the Modified
Gap Theory, his usual response is to attempt to cloud the issue by
suggesting that he does not accept the standard Gap Theory. H e
has complained, for example: "Y ou'll notice that I'm accused of ad¬
vocating both the Gap Theory and the Day-Age Theory there, and
of course neither one of those am I advocating.,,, But I would like
to emphasize that I do not in any way, shape, or form embrace the
Gap Theory” (1980b).

Yet, in his lecture. Evolution's Proof of God, he is on record
as stating: "In Genesis 1:2 I'm told by the Hebrew scholars that
the most accurate reading is that the earth 'became without form
and void' and some have suggested that maybe a tremendous
number of years passed between the first part of Genesis
1:1 and Genesis 1:2” (n,d.[d], emp. added). M r. Clayton then went
on to defend that very position. I wonder—what would the average
person call that "tremendous number of years” between Genesis
1:1 and 1:2? A "gap” perhaps?

Those who made the "accusation” to which Clayton was re¬
sponding never suggested that he accepted the standard Gap The¬
ory. The issue was whether or not he accepted the M odified G ap
Theory. [In fact, he is the one who invented the theory in the first
place, in the 1976 edition of his book. The Source.]The standard
Gap Theory suggests that in the alleged time interval between Gen¬
esis 1:1 and 1:2, the Earth was destroyed during a battle between
Satan and G od. C layton is on record as stating that he does not ac¬
cept that so-called "gap destruction,” Mr, Clayton does not like be¬
ing saddled with any label that identifies his views for what they are.
H e bristles at being "boxed in,” to use his own words. In attempt¬
ing to skirt the issues, therefore, at times he has been known to an¬
swer charges that have not even been leveled. The account of the
events surrounding his Modified Gap Theory provides a good ex¬
ample of this very thing.

286

M iscellaneous Compromises of the Genesis Record

J ohn Clayton's "private theology" (see Francella, 1981) is re¬
plete with unscriptural concepts, discrepancies, and contradictions
that bear close examination. Notice that, according to his chart (re¬
produced on page 285), the "creation week" does not commence
until Genesis l:14ff. Since this section of Genesis 1 has to do with
the events of day four and afterward, Clayton's "week" of cre¬
ative activity has only three days! Furthermore, Clayton's Modi¬
fied G ap T heory suggests that during the eons of time prior to the
"creation week” God was building up a "resource ecosystem” by
theuseofamoebas, bacteria, water, plants, dinosaurs, etc. (again,
refer to his chart on Genesis 1:1). Y et at other times, while attempt¬
ing to defend his Modified Gap Theory, Clayton has contended that
the "most accurate reading" of Genesis 1:2 is that the Earth "be¬
came without form and void" (n.d.[d], emp. added). Which is it?
Was the Earth generating or degenerating during this period?
Obviously, it cannot be both.

Earlier, I quoted Clayton as suggesting that in Exodus 20:11
Moses "avoids the creation question and concentrates on his
own purpose” (1976a, 3[10]:5, emp. added). I would like to address
that point here, for it is a careless comment indeed. The purpose
of Moses' statement was not merely to establish the Sabbath law;
it also was an explanation as to the reason for the Sabbath. Ex¬
actly why were the Israelites commanded to observe the Sabbath?
Because in six days God created the Earth and its creatures and on
the seventh day rested. To state that M oses "avoids the creation
question" is wrong. The divine writer did not avoid a reference to
the Creator; "J ehovah” is specified. Nor did he avoid referring to
the Lord's action; he noted that God "made" these things.

The Modified Gap Theory flatly contradicts both Exodus 20:11
andGenesisl. For example, Clayton has argued that the creation
offish (cold-blooded creatures)occurred in Genesis 1:1, whereas
according to M oses they were created on the fifth day (G enesis 1:
20-23). The Genesis record states that creeping things (which would
include both insects and reptiles) were brought into existence on

287

Miscellaneous Compromises of the Genesis Record

the sixth day (1:21,24), but the M odified Gap Theory places them
in the time period before the creation week, J ohn C layton simply
rearranges the G enesis record to fit his own evolutionary presup¬
positions—without any regard whatsoever for what G od had to say
on the matter.

The only way that Clayton can hold to his Modified Gap The¬
ory and his "private theology” is to convince people that his way
of translating Genesis is the correct way. H e has attempted to
do just that for more than three decades. In order to succeed, he
has found it necessary to present people with an entirely new vo¬
cabulary, This is the case with many false teachers. They realize
they never will be able to reach the masses by using correct, bibli¬
cal terminology, so they invent altogether new terms, or offer dras¬
tic reinterpretations of old ones, in an attempt to make their ideas
appear plausible and acceptable (see Miller, 1987, 7[2]:2-3).

The Modified Gap Theory, with its accompanying off-beat brand
of theistic evolution, rests upon the (mis)interpretation of two H e-
brew words, bara and asah, used in Genesis 1-2. H ere is what M r,
Clayton has said about them, and why they are so important to
his "private theology."

In the H ebrew culture and in the H ebrew language there is
a difference between something being created and something
being made. The idea of creation involves a miraculous act
onthepartofGod. It is not something that man can do, nor
is it something that can occur naturally.... The H ebrew word
used in Genesis 1 to describe this process is the word bara.

As one might expect, this word is not used extensively in the
Bible, in fact, it is only used in verses 1,21, and 27 in Gene¬
sis. The other concept in the H ebrew culture and in the H e-
brew language that is used in reference to things coming into
existence involves the process of producing something nat¬
urally. The idea is that something came into existence because
of planning, wisdom, and intelligence, but not as a miracu¬
lous act of God. Many times acts of men are described in this
way. The H ebrew word asah is the main H ebrew word trans¬
lated this way in Genesis 1. It is vital to a proper understand¬
ing of Genesis that these two words not be confused because

288

M iscellaneous Compromises of the Genesis Record

much understanding is lost and considerable contradiction
with the scientific evidence is generated when the words are
not distinguished from each other (1991, 18[l]:6-7).

Clayton also has written:

We have pointed outthatthe H ebrew word bara normally
means to create something out of nothing while the word
asah usually implies the re-shaping of something that was
already in existence. ...the normal use of the word bara and
the normal use of the word asah are distinctly different and
this difference is important in one's interpretation of Gene¬
sis 1 (1979b, 6[5]:2-5).

The following detailed summaryfrom J ohn Clayton's own writ¬
ings should clarify why this distinction is so important to the success
of his Modified Gap Theory,

1. God initiated the Big Bang, and the U niverse developed accord¬
ing to evolutionary theories (Clayton, 1991,18[1]:8). [In a "News
and Notes” insert in the September/October 1999 issue of his
Does God Exist? journal, Clayton wrote: "We have tried over
and over again to point out to readers that the big bang theory
is not at odds with the Bible nor with the concept of God as
Creator" (1999, 26[5]:no page number, emp. added).]

2. The initial creation (bara) supposedly included such things as
the Sun, Moon, Earth, stars, etc. (Clayton, 1991,18[1]:8). As I
discussed earlier, C layton places certain living creatures in this
period (which he refers to as "pre-history"), including such things
as dinosaurs, bacteria, cold-blooded animals, etc., but no warm¬
blooded animals or man,

3. Sometime after the initial creation, God then began to form and
make (asah) things. As Clayton has stated: "It is important to rec¬
ognize that this process of creating...is described in Genesis 1:1-3.
Verse 4ff deal with something all together different—the mak¬
ing, forming, and shaping of the created earth. Creation does not
occur again until animal life is described in verses 20 and 21”
(1991, 19[l]:8-9).

289

Miscellaneous Compromises of the Genesis Record

4. Beginning in the time period called Day 5, according to Clay¬
ton, God began to make new things (Clayton, 1991,18[1]:9),
which presumably would include marine life, birds, and man,
but would exclude light, oceans, atmosphere, dry land, plan¬
ets, stars, and beasts of the field-all of which supposedly were
"created” (bara) in Genesis 1:1.

5. Man's spiritual part then was created (bara) in God's image
(1:27), and his physical partwasformed (yatsar, not bara)from
the dust of the ground (Clayton, 1991, 18[1]:9).

6. By the end of Genesis 1, God's "creating" and "making" were
finished, but "there is no indication in the B ibie that the seventh
day ever ended" (Clayton, 1990c, 17[4]:11).

The terribly convoluted scenario involved in what you have just
read is absolutely necessary, from Clayton's viewpoint, in order to
make his Modified Gap Theory work. Here, now, is what is wrong
with all of this.

First, the distinction of the alleged difference between bara and
asah is completely artificial, and C layton has admitted that this is
the case. In the May 1979 issue of his Does God Exist? journal, he
wrote:

Because there are a few isolated exceptions where
the context seems to indicate that the word bara or asah
has been used in a different way than the application we
have just discussed, there are those who maintain that one
cannot scripturally maintain the applications of these words
as we have presented them in reference to Genesis 1. The
H ebrew language, as most of us recognize, is a language which
can be interpreted only in its context (1979b, 6[5]:4, emp. ad¬
ded).

In his Does God Exist? Correspondence Course, Clayton con¬
fessed: "Some may object to this superliteral interpretation of bara
and asah by responding that there are exceptions to the usages I
have described in the previous paragraphs. Such a criticism is
valid” (1990b, p. 3, emp. added).

290

M iscellaneous Compromises of the Genesis Record

Second, the "few isolated exceptions” (as Clayton calls them)
to his suggested usages of bara and asah are neither few nor iso¬
lated. Furthermore, those exceptions completely obliterate his ar¬
tificial distinction in regard to bara and asah (which, in fact, often
are used interchangeably throughout the 0 Id Testament, and
do not always have the strict interpretation that) ohn C layton has
attempted to place on them). Notice the following,

(1) Clayton has suggested: "Asone mightexpect, this word [bara
—bt] is not used extensively in the Bible, in fact, it is only used in
verses 1,21, and 27 in Genesis” (1991,18[l]:6-7), This statement
is completely untrue. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance cites no
fewer than 11 instances of bara in the book of Genesis. Addition¬
ally, bara and its derivatives occur 40 times in the 0 Id Testament
apart from Genesis. In over 30 instances, it means "create, shape,
form, or fashion."

(2) C layton has insisted—in keeping with the rules of his new vo¬
cabulary—that the word bara always must mean "to create some¬
thing from nothing” (1990c, 17[4]:7). This, too, is incorrect, as I
argued at length in Chapter 9. Henry Morris observed:

The H ebrew words for "create" (bara)and for "make" (asah)
are very often used quite interchangeably in Scripture, at least
when God is the one referred to as creating or making. There¬
fore, the fact that bara is used only three times in Genesis 1
(vv. 1,21, and 27) certainly does not imply that the other cre¬
ative acts, in which "made" or some similar expression is used,
were really only acts of restoration. For example, in Genesis
1:21, God "created" the fishes and birds; in 1:25, H e "made"
the animals and creeping things. In verse 26, God speaks of
"making" man in H isown image. The next verse states that
God "created" man in H isown image. No scientific orexe-
getical ground exists for distinction between the two pro¬
cesses, except perhaps a matter of grammatical emphasis.
...Finally, the summary verse (Genesis 2:3) clearly says that
all of God's works, both of "creating" and "making" were
completed within the six days, after which God "rested" (1966,
p. 32, emp. in orig.).

291

Miscellaneous Compromises of the Genesis Record

Clayton's insistence that bara always must mean "to create
something from nothing, is, quite simply, wrong, 0 Id Testament
scholar C .F, Keil (quoted earlier in chapter 9) concluded that when
bara appears in its basic form, as it does in Genesis 1,

...it always means to create, and is only applied to a divine
creation, the production of that which had no existence be¬
fore. Itis never joined with an accusative of the material, al¬
though it does not exclude a pre-existent material un¬
conditionally, but is used for the creation of man (ver. 27,
ch. V. 1,2), and of everything new thatGod creates, whether
in the kingdom of nature (N umbers xvi. 30) or of that of grace
(Ex. xxxiv.lO; Ps. li.lO, etc.) [1971,1:47, firstemp. in orig.,
last emp. added].

Further, there is ample evidence that C layton knows his efforts
to make bara represent only that "which has been created from
nothing" are incorrect. Genesis 1:27 is the passage that reveals
the error of his interpretation: "So God created (bara) man in his
own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female
created he them,” If Clayton's assertion is correct that bara can
be used only to mean "to create something from nothing,” then the
obvious conclusion is that in Genesis 1:27 God created man and
woman from nothing. But, of course, that conflicts with Genesis 2:
7, which states that God formed man from the dust of the ground.

FI ow has C layton attempted to correct his obvious error? FI e has
suggested—in keeping with his new vocabulary—that Genesis 1:
27 really issayingthatwhen God "created” (bara) man. Fie actu¬
ally created not man's body, but his soul from nothing (1991,18
[1]:9). Such a strained interpretation can be proven wrong by a sim¬
ple reading of the text. Genesis 1:27 tells the reader what was cre¬
ated—"male and female created he them," Do souls come in "male"
and "female" varieties? They do not. Souls are spirits, and as such
are sexless, (e.g., as] esussaid angels were-Matthew 22:29-30;
cf. Thompson, 2000a). Yet Clayton's Modified Gap Theory inter¬
pretation plainly implies that male and female souls exist. A well-
known principle in elementary logic is that any argument with a
false premise (or premises) is unsound. Thus, the Modified Gap
Theory is unsound.

292

M iscellaneous Compromises of the Genesis Record

(3) Taking the creation passages at face value and in their prop¬
er context, it is obvious that no distinction is made between the act
of creating and the act of making. For example, God's activity dur¬
ing this first week is described in terms other than creating or mak¬
ing. This includes the phrase, "Let there be," which is used to usher
in each new day and the things created in that day. Also, note that
God "divided" the light from the darkness, and He "set" the light¬
giving objects in the expanse of the sky. H ow would j ohn C lay-
ton's "new vocabulary" deal with these matters?

(4) There is compelling evidence that the words bara and asah
are used interchangeably throughout the 0 Id Testament. C lay-
ton, has stated: "It is difficult to believe that there would be two
words used to convey the same process” (1990c, 17[4]:7). Yetwhy
is it difficult to imagine that two different words might be used to de¬
scribe exactly the same process? Writers commonly employ differ¬
ent words to describe the same thing(s), thereby providing "stylistic
relief"—a grammatical construct which avoids the needless repe¬
tition that occurs by using the same words over and over. F or more
than a hundred years, conservative scholars have made a similar
point to proponents of the Documentary H ypothesis, arguing that
there is no reasonable way to dissect the 0 Id Testament on the ba¬
sis of the words Elohim ("God")and Yahweh ("j ehovah").

Bible writers often employed different words to describe the same
thing(s). For example, in the four Gospels, Christ is spoken of as hav¬
ing been killed, crucified, and slain. Where is the distinction? N ew
T estament writers often spoke of the church, the body, and the king¬
dom—which are exactly the same thing (see Thompson, 1999c, pp.
60-62), Where is the difference? Why should anyone find it difficult
to accept that entirely different words may be used to describe the
same thing or event?

Furthermore, the Scriptures are replete with examples which
prove that—beyond the shadow of a doubt—bara and asah are
used interchangeably. For example, in Psalm 148:1-5, the writer
spoke of the "creation” (bara) of the angels. Y et when N ehemiah

293

Miscellaneous Compromises of the Genesis Record

addressed the creation of angels, he employed the word asah to
describe it (9:6). In Genesis 1:1, as Clayton has admitted, the text
speaks of God "creating” (bara)the Earth, Yet again, when Nehe-
miah spoke of that same event, he employed the word asah to do
so (9:6). When M oses wrote of the "creation” of man, he used bara
(Genesis 1:27). But one verse before that (1:26), he spoke of the
"making” (asah) of man. M oses even employed the two words in
the same verse (Genesis 2:4) when he said: "These are the gen¬
erations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created
[bara], in the day that] ehovah made [asah] earth and heaven,"

J ohn Clayton has said that the Earth was created (bara) from
nothing in G enesis 1:1. Y et M oses said in G enesis 2:4 that the Earth
was made (asah). C layton is on record as stating that the use of
asah can refer only to that which is made from something already
in existence. D oes he then believe that when M oses spoke of the
Earth being "made,” it was formed from something already in ex¬
istence?

And what about Exodus 20:11 in this context? Moses wrote:
"For in six days the Lord made [asah] heaven and earth, the sea
and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day.” C layton has
written that this speaks only of G od's "forming" from something
already in existence. B ut notice that the verse specifically speaks of
the heaven and the Earth and the sea and all that in them is.
Does Clayton therefore contend that God formed the heavens from
something already in existence? Exodus 20:11 speaks of every¬
thing made by God in the six days of creation, Y et even Clayton
has admitted that "creation (bara) does not occur again until ani¬
mal life is described in verses 20 and 21.” How can this be? Mo¬
ses stated that God "made" (asah) everything in the creation week.
N 0 w M r, C layton suggests that there was "creation” (bara) going
on in that week. Even ] ohn C layton, therefore, has admitted that
there are times when the two words describe the same events dur¬
ing the same time period!

294

M iscellaneous Compromises of the Genesis Record

In addition to these problems, the Modified Gap Theory has
the same difficulty explaining Nehemiah 9:6 as the standard Gap
Theory. Since that was discussed at length in Chapter 9,1 will not
repeat it here.

(5) Weston W. Fields suggested that forcing bara and asah to
refer to completely separate acts eventually results in what he cal¬
led a "monstrosity of interpretation"—which is exactly what J ohn
Clayton's suggested usage of these words represents. Remember
that Clayton has stated plainly that at the end of Genesis 1:1 there
was a ful ly functional Earth in existence (complete with various
kinds of life teeming on it), and that it remained that way for eons.
If that is the case—based on his bara/ asah argument—how would
he explain the following problem?

Clayton has taught that the "heavenly bodies" (Sun, Moon, stars,
etc.) were a part of the bara-type creation of G enesis 1:1. B ut Ex-
odus20:ll specifically states that they were "made" (asah). Are
we to believe that they were both "created" and "made”? Y es, that
is exactly what Clayton has advocated.

Applied in this literal sense to Genesis 1, one would find that
the heaven and earth were brought into existence mirac¬
ulously in Genesis 1:1. This would include the sun, moon,
stars, galaxies, black holes, nebula [sic], comets, asteroids and
pianets.... Verses 14-19 wouid not describe the creation of
the sun, moon and stars, but the reshaping or rearranging of
them to a finished form (1989, 16[1]:6).

H ow were the Sun, M oon, and stars ("created," C layton says,
in Genesis 1:1)assisting the Earth in being "fully functional" when
they themselves had not even been "rearranged to a finished form"?
0 ne hardly could have a fully functional Earth without the Sun and
Moon. Yet by his own admission. Genesis 1:14-19 speaks of God
doing something to those heavenly bodies. For centuries, compe¬
tent B ibie scholars have accepted that it is in these verses that G od
is described as bringing the heavenly bodies into existence. But no,
says Clayton, that is not true. They were in existence from Gene-

295

Miscellaneous Compromises of the Genesis Record

sis 1:1, but they had not yet been "rearranged to a finished form”
—something that would not occur until billions of years later. H ow
could these unfinished heavenly bodies have been of any use to
a finished Earth? H ow could the Earth be "functional" unless the
Sun, Moon, and other planets were "functional" as well? And if
they were "functional” in Genesis 1:1, why "rearrange" them?

Clayton is on record as stating: "When we look at those places
where the word 'make' is used, the context leaves absolutely no
doubt about what the intention of the author is for that passage"
(1979b, 6[5]:5). I could not agree more! There is absolutely no
doubt about how the Bible writers employed these words. They
used them just as any author would employ them—interchangeably.

THE NON-WORLD VIEW OF ORIGINS
Imagine, if you will, the dilemma of a person who has done all
he knows to do to force the evolutionary geologic age-system into
the biblical record, but who has discovered that it simply will not fit.
If that person wishes to retain his belief in God, but abjectly refuses
to accept the biblical account of creation at face value, what option
remains open to him? For the person not wishing to become an
atheist or agnostic, there is only one remaining possibility—the "Non-
World View."

What is the Non-World View?

The Non-World View dates from 1972, with the publication of
A Christian View of Origins by Donald England, distinguished pro¬
fessor of chemistry at H arding U niversity. In essence, it represents
a "refusal to get involved" by not taking a stand on the Genesis ac¬
count of creation. England himself defined it as suggesting:

There is no worldview presented in Genesis 1.1 believe the
intent of G enesis 1 is far too sublime and spiritual for one to
presume that it teaches anything at all about a cosmological
world view. We do this profound text a great injustice by in¬
sisting that there is inherent within the text an argumentfor
any particular world view (1972, p. 124).

296

M iscellaneous Compromises of the Genesis Record

In other words, this is a compromise for the person who: (a) re¬
fuses to accept the Genesis account of creation as written; but
(b) cannot find a reasonable alternative. In his book, Dr, England
made it clear that from a straightforward reading of the G enesis ac¬
count "one gets the general impression from the Bible that the earth
is young,” and that "it is true that Biblical chronology leaves one with
the general impression of a relatively recent origin for man” (1972,
p, 109). But he also made it clear that he had no intention of ac¬
cepting such positions, since they disagree with "science.”

Finding himself painted into a corner, as it were, the only way
out was simply to throw up his hands and, with a sigh of relief, view
Genesis as containing no world view whatsoever. As one writer
who strongly recommends the Non-World View suggested:

By "Non-World" we mean that we don't accept any "God-
limiting" position on how we interpret Genesis. We don't
limit our comprehension of time, space, or process in any
way B ibiically: and do this unlimiting on the basis that that's
what God intended....

If C hapter 1 is not a detailed historical account, how do we
fit the fossil record to it? The "Non-World" View says "we
don't." If we are to speak where the Bible speaks and be si¬
lent where the B ibie is silent we won't succumb to the pres¬
sure to make it fit. Since the Bible doesn't mention dino¬
saurs, bats, amoeba, bacteria, dna, virus [sic], sea plants, al¬
gae, fungus [sic], etc., we won't attempt to match them. There
are a few forms we can match, butonlyafewoutofthe mil¬
lions. The Flebrew words used in Genesis do not cover whole
phyla of animals but they are reasonably specific. If we take
a "Non-World View," this doesn't bother us because we are
only interested in God's message to man, not in satisfying
man's curiosity.

The "Non-World View" also finds no necessity in dealing with
men's arguments on the scientific theories of creation and age.

There is no necessity to argue about the "big bang," "steady
state," or irtron theory of origins: nor is there any need to has¬
sle about whether the Earth is 6, 6,000 or 6 billion years old.
Genesis 1:1 says only that God did it! That is the purpose. It
is not the purpose to state how or when (Clayton, 1977,4[6]:

6-8, emp. in orig.).

297

Miscellaneous Compromises of the Genesis Record

A Response and Refutation

The careful reader soon will realize that this is indeed the com¬
promise to end all compromises. With the Non-World View, a per¬
son may believe as much, or as little, as he wants in regard to the
Genesis account of creation. If the person who holds to this view is
challenged with a passage of Scripture, he may reply simply, "0 h,
that passage doesn't have any particular world view in it.” And the
convenient thing is that it does not matter how forceful the passage
may be, whether it comes from the 0 Id Testament or the N ew, what
biblical writer may have penned it, or even if C hrist H imself spoke
it. With the Non-World View, everything becomes subjective.

T he beauty of this view, according to C layton, is that it is not "G od-
limiting” (1977, 4[6]:6). Even though when one reads the creation
account he gets the "general impression” that man has been here
only a short while, and that the Earth is relatively young, and even
though Christ Himself stated in Mark 10:6 that man and woman
have been here "from the beginning of the creation,” all of that be¬
comes irrelevant. W ith a wave of the hand, G enesis 1 means little-
to-nothing. In fact, it might as well not have been written, for it sim¬
ply has "no world view” in it at all.

Yet God went to great lengths to explain what was done on day
one, what was done on day two, what was done on day three, and
so on. H e commented to M oses that H e took six days to do it. Then
H e set the Sabbath day as the] ews' remembrance of H is creative
acts on those days. If God said "in the beginning” and "in six days
the Lord created,” that is a time element, j esus H imself said that
"from the beginning of the creation, male and female made
H e them” (M ark 10:6). That is a time element. True, it does not give
an exact day and hour, but it says much. It says man was on the Earth
"from the beginning.” That automatically rules out an ancient Earth,
and those compromising theories intent on having one (e.g., the
Day-Age Theory, theGapTheory, the Multiple Gap Theory, the
Modified Gap Theory, etc.). God has indicated—in a way we can

298

M iscellaneous Compromises of the Genesis Record

understand—what H e wants us to know about the time element.
When H e said that H e created "the heavens, the earth, the seas, and
all that in them is” in six days, does that sound like a "N on-World"
view?

M an may not understand completely the exact "how" of G od's
creative activity, but that "how" is present nevertheless. When the
Scriptures say, "And God said, let there be light' and there was
light”—that is how. When the Scriptures say, "And God said, let
the earth put forth grass,"' and later "And the earth brought forth
grass"—that is how. The "how" is by the power of God (cf. H e-
brews 1:3, wherein the writer declared that G od upholds "all things
by the word of his power").

Granted, the text of Genesis 1 is sublime and spiritual. Italso is
historical. J esusChrist H imself said so (Matthew 19:4), So did Paul
(1 Corinthians 15:45; Romans 8:22; 1 Timothy 2:13). That should
settle the matter. G od said that H e did it—"by the word of his pow¬
er," God said when H e did it—"in the beginning," The honest read¬
er eventually will come to realize just how much that includes, and
just how much it excludes. The only "world view" left is the perfect
one—that of Genesis 1.

The Non-World View is a neatly disguised by openly flagrant at¬
tack on Genesis 1. It not only impeaches the testimony of the N ew
T estament writers, but even impugns the integrity of the Lord H im¬
self. A nd for what purpose? What ultimate good does it accomplish?
It merely compromises the truth, while leaving open the way for any
and all viewpoints on creation—whether founded in Scripture or not.
Furthermore, surely the question begs to be asked: If Genesis 1
is not God's world view, then what Is?

THE MULTIPLE GAP THEORY

For those who find the Day-Age and Gap theories impossible
to defend, and yet who do not wish to opt for a theory like the N on-
World View that is an open door to extreme liberalism and/ or mod-

299

Miscellaneous Compromises of the Genesis Record

ernism, the list of remaining available theories is quite short. 0 ne
concept that has become somewhat popular is called the "M ultiple
Gap Theory.”

What is the Multiple Gap Theory?

T he M ultiple G ap T heory suggests that the creation days were,
in fact, six literal, 24-hour days during which God actually performed
the special creative works attributed to H im in Genesis 1. How¬
ever, these literal days tell only a small part of the whole story. Rath¬
er than representing the totality of God's work in creation, they in¬
stead represent "breaks” between the geologic ages. In other words,
after God's activity on any given literal day, that day then was fol¬
lowed by long ages of slow development in the style of orthodox,
historical geology. Actually, this theory is a hybridization of the Day-
Age and Gap theories. Instead of making "ages” out of the days
of Genesis 1, it merely inserts the ages between the days. And in¬
stead of putting a single gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, it in¬
serts multiple gaps between the days of Genesis 1.

0 ne of the M ultiple Gap Theory's strongest supporters, and cer¬
tainly one of its most ardent popularizers, is, strangely enough, Don¬
ald England. The reason I say "strangely enough” is because this is
the same Donald England, mentioned above, who invented the Non-
World View of Genesis and who is on record as stating:

Genesis 1 is far too sublime and spiritual for one to presume
that it teaches anything at all about a cosmological world view.

We do this profound text a great injustice by insisting that
there is inherent in the text an argument for any particular
world view (1972, p. 124).

Of course, as I already have pointed out, the main reason for pos¬
tulating the Non-World View of Genesis 1 is so that a person may
insert into the text any world view that he happens to hold at any
given moment. That is exactly what has happened in the case of Dr.
England and the M ultiple Gap Theory. A word of explanation is in
order.

300

M iscellaneous Compromises of the Genesis Record

Dr. England, as I noted earlier, Isa professor at Harding Uni¬
versity, located in Searcy, A rkansas. H arding is supported by mem¬
bers of the churches of C hrist, who generally have been known to
be quite conservative in their positions regarding the Genesis account
of creation, In the past, for the most part, members of the churches
of C hrist have not tolerated the teachings of false doctrines asso¬
ciated with creation. Dr, England, of course, is well aware of that
fact. The M ultiple Gap Theory has the advantage of allowing him,
when asked, to assert that he does, in fact, believe the days of cre¬
ation to be 24-hour periods. And, if he is asked if he believes in the
Gap Theory, again, he can demur, insisting that he does not.
But is this an upright approach? Or is it "playing loosely with
the facts"? Interestingly, an example is available upon which one
may base an answer to such questions. In March 1982, Dr. England
lectured to a group of young people in Memphis, Tennessee. Dur¬
ing that series, he told these youngsters that although he had spent
a lifetime searching for "proof" that the days of Genesis 1 were 24-
hour days, he never had found any such proof. H e then went to great
lengths to set before this audience of impressionable teenagers a
number of "objections" to the days of G enesis 1 being literal days.

Asa result of D r, E ngland's comments, and a subsequent review
of them (see Thompson, 1982), the then-president of H arding U ni-
versity, Clifton L. Ganus, received several inquiries from the univer¬
sity's financial supporters about Dr, England's position on these mat¬
ters. How did England respond? On October 4,1982, hewroteDr.
Ganus a letter in which he stated:

Dear Dr. Ganus: I enjoyed my brief visit with you on Friday
afternoon. I stated in your presence that I have always be¬
lieved that the creation days of G enesis 0 ne were six twenty-
four hour days. Anyone who would take anything that I said
in the [name of congregation omitted here— bt] lectures and
try to associate me with a "day-age" theory of creation is mak¬
ing a mistake.... Whenever I speak on the creation theme, I
am always careful to make my position clear as to my under¬
standing of the length of days in Genesis One... (1981P-1).

301

Miscellaneous Compromises of the Genesis Record

Dr, England then offered, as proof of his position on these matters,
a quotation from pages 111-113 of his 1972 volume, A Christian
View of Origins, in which he explained that he does not recom¬
mend strict theistic evolution, But here is the interesting point in all
of this. In that same book, just two pages earlier, he had written the
following:

The statements, "God created" (Genesis 1 and elsewhere) and
"God spoke and it was done; H e commanded and it stood
fast" (Ps, 33:9) do not explicitly rule out some sort of pro¬
cess, N 0 w, if the days of G enesis are taken as 2 4-hour days,
then that certainly rules out any process extending over vast
periods of time. The days could easily have been twenty-four-
hour days and the earth still date to great antiquity provided
that indefinite periods of time separated the six cre¬
ation days (1972, pp, 110-111, emp, added).

Is this dealing honestly with the facts? D r, E ngland told the uni¬
versity president (who certainly had the power to dismiss him) that
he does bel ieve the days of Genesis 1 were 24-hours long, all
the while knowing that he has defended, in print, the M ultiple Gap
Theory,

A Response and Refutation

At the very least, this theory requires a most "unnatural” read¬
ing of the C reation account, which apparently is continuous and
meant to describe the creation of "heaven and earth, the sea, and
all that in them is," The context of the creation record suggests con¬
tinuity. There is absolutely no exegetical evidence to document the
claim that in between each of the (literal) creation days there were
millions or billions of years. In fact, such evidence is conspicuously
missing. In his 1983 volume, A Scientist Examines Faith and Ev¬
idence, Dr, England commented on this fact when he said: "True,
the silence of the Scriptures leaves open the possibility of time gaps
but it does not seem advisable to build a doctrinal theory on
the basis of a silence of Scripture" (p, 154, emp, added).

302

M iscellaneous Compromises of the Genesis Record

Nor does the theory harmonize with orthodox geology. If the acts
of creation are left on their respective days, then there is no possible
way to make the C reation account agree with the geologic-age sys¬
tem-gaps or no gaps. As the chart on the next page shows, the Gen¬
esis sequence and the alleged geologic sequence do not agree.
The M ultiple Gap Theory does not alter that fact.

Additionally, we must not overlook Exodus 20:11, which spe¬
cifically states that "in six days the Lord made heaven and earth,
the sea, and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day.”
Either God made what H e made in six days or H e made what H e
made in six days plus millions or billions of years. Those respect¬
ing the B ibie as the inspired Word of G od have no trouble accept¬
ing the former and rejecting the latter.

THE FRAMEWORK HYPOTHESIS
[ARTISTICO-HISTORICAL THEORY]

The theory known as the "framework hypothesis" had its begin¬
nings in 1924 when Dutch scholar Arie Noordtzij, professor at the
U niversity of U trecht, published a work whose title may be trans¬
lated into English as, God's Word and the Testimony of the Ages.
While not as popular as it was in its heyday, I believe it at least bears
mentioning here.

What is the Framework Hypothesis?

Noordtzij's "framework hypothesis" of Genesis 1-11 views these
chapters as somewhat of a rhetorical framework within which are
developed the spiritual themes of "creation” (the divine source and
meaning of reality), man's "fall" (man's ever-recurring experience
of spiritual and moral inadequacy), and reconciliation (the broad
currents in history by which man seeks to understand and appro¬
priate spiritual meaning in life). The framework hypothesis contends
that the treatment of creation in Genesis was logical, not chrono¬
logical.

303

Miscellaneous Compromises of the Genesis Record

DIVISION

SIGNIFICANT FOSSIL
APPEARANCES

YEARS

AGO

(millions)

GENESIS

(days)

Cenozoic

Quaternary

H omo erectus/ H. sapiens

T ertiary

Rabbits: Rodents: Marsupials

Camels: Deer: Cattle: Horses

Elephants: Pigs: Early marsupials

Whales: Dolphins: Seals

Mesozoic

Cretaceous

Flowering plants

Platypus: Sloths

Modern bony fishes

Snakes

144

J urassic

Lizards

Birds

First true mammals

208

T riassic

Turtles: Frogs: Crocodiles

Tuatara: Dinosaurs

Conifers

245

Paleozoic

Permian

Ginkgoes: Cycads: Horsetails

M arine reptiles

286

Carboniferous

Reptiles: Mammal-like reptiles

Amphibians

Ferns

360

Devonian

Sharks: Bony fish

408

Silurian

Club mosses

438

Ordovician

J awless fishes

505

Cambrian

Worms: Shellfish: Trilobites

Burgess Shale fauna: First fish?

550

Precambrian

Proterozoic

J ellyfish: Ediacaran fauna

G reen algae

2,500

Archaean

Bacteria

3,800

H adean

First single-celled organism

Formation of Earth and Moon

2-4

Formation of Solar System

4,800

Comparison of the evolutionary geological column with the order of
creation in Genesis. Evolutionary dates and data based primarily on
Gould (1993).

304

M iscellaneous Compromises of the Genesis Record

T wo men besides Noordtzij who have espoused the framework
hypothesisareN.H, Ridderbos(in hisl957 work, IsThereaCon-
flict Between Genesis 1 and Natural Science?)and Charles Hauret
(in his 1955 work, Beginnings: Genesis and Modern Science). Rid¬
derbos spent considerable time and effort in defense of his position.
In his book. Scientific Creationism, Henry Morris, discussed the
framework hypothesis.

The particular "framework" in which these ideas are devel¬
oped varies according to the particular expositor. Some speak
of Genesis as "allegorical," others as "liturgical," others as
"poetic," others as "supra-historical." All agree, however, in
rejecting it as "scientific" or "historical." They concur that Gen¬
esis teaches the fact of "creation" and the "fall," but deny
that it has anything to say concerning the method. They hope
to retain whatever theological significance it may have while,
at the same time, avoiding scientific embarrassment (1974a,
p. 244, emp. in orig.).

Raymond Surburg, in addressing H auret's reasoning, commented:

H e taughtthatthe creation account in Genesis l:l-2:4a was
a scheme designed to aid the mind to remember the account
because it was based on everyday life. The framework of Gen¬
esis 1 :l-2:4a closely copies the work of man. The H ebrew peo¬
ple worked during the day, stopped working at night, resumed
again in the morning, and this was done for six days to be fol¬
lowed by a seventh day, a day of rest. The M osaic cosmogony
likewise depicts the divine C reator working during the day,
ceasing from H is labors at night, resuming the next day, and
this H e does for six days. H auret thought that the main pur¬
pose of this creation account was liturgical. It was to promul¬
gate for the first time the law of the Sabbath rest which is given
in Exodus 20:11 (1959, p. 62).

N oordtzij said the purpose of the author of G enesis could not have
been "to offer a natural historically faithful account of the process of
creation.” He further pointed out

that the six days of Genesis 1 are obviously intended as the
sum of two triduums which consequently reveal a clearly pro¬
nounced parallelism, while the total arrangement is intended

305

Miscellaneous Compromises of the Genesis Record

to place in bold relief the surpassing glory of man who at¬
tains his true destiny in the Sabbath (as quoted in Ridderbos,

1957, p. 11).

Although Noordtzij believed the "days” of Genesis 1 to be literal
days, he also maintained that the author introduced them merely
as part of a framework for the narrative of creation. They do not in¬
dicate historical sequence, but instead depict the glory of the crea¬
tures in the light of the great redemptive purpose of God.

A Response and Refutation

When A he Noordtzij published his work, his foremost opponent
was professor G .C. Aalders of the Free U niversity of Amsterdam.*
Aalders, while desiring to be as fair as possible to N oordtzij, declared
that he was compelled to understand Noordtzij as holding that as
far as the days of G enesis are concerned, there was no reality with
respect to the divine creative activity (see Y oung, 1964, p. 47). Aal¬
ders then made two remarks that should guide every serious inter¬
preter of Genesis 1:

(1) In the text of Genesis itself, there is not a single allusion
to suggest that the days are to be regarded as a form or mere
manner of representation and hence of no significance for the
essential knowledge of the divine creative activity. (2) In Ex¬
odus 20:11 the activity of God is presented to man as a pat¬
tern, and this fact presupposed thatthere was a reality in the
activity of God which man is to follow. H ow could man be
held accountable for working six days if God himself had not
actually worked for six days? (as quoted in Young, 1964, p.

47).

Y oung then remarked: "To the best of the present writer's knowl¬
edge no one has ever answered these two considerations of Aal¬
ders'' (1964, p. 47).That statement holds true even today. Surburg
has noted:

* Edward] .Young, in his book, Studies in Genesis One (1964, pp. 44-47), provided
an excellent description of A alders' work, as well as a refutation of the framework
hypothesis.

306

M iscellaneous Compromises of the Genesis Record

...Aalders queries: What meaning did the writer of Genesis
want the readers of Genesis 1 to gain when they read this ac¬
count? Would the account of Genesis 1 lead the ordinary reader
to suspect that the order of created events recorded was not
historical? A sound principle of Biblical interpretation must
be sacrificed in order to compromise with the current theories
of geologists, astronomers, and biologists.

The views of Noordtzij and Ridderbos are based on the as¬
sumption that the sequence of creative events is not to be ac¬
cepted, because the historical order of Genesisl seems to con¬
flict with the findings of historical geology. In view of the unique
character ofthe opening chapter of the Bible, which does not
depict the history of men but solely the activity of God, it is
argued that a departure from the rules that one would nor¬
mally apply to Biblical historiography is justified in treating
Genesis 1 (1959, pp. 63-64).

H enry M orris also has addressed the problem of viewing G enesis

1-11 as a "literary device" rather than as actual history.

This type of Biblical exegesis is out ofthe question for any
real believer in the Bible. It is the method of so-called "neo-
orthodoxy," though it is neither new nor orthodox. It cuts out
the foundation ofthe entire Biblical system when it expunges
Genesis 1-11. The events of these chapters are recorded in
simple narrative form, as though the writer or writers fully in¬
tended to record a series of straightforward historical facts;
there is certainly no internal or exegetical reason for taking
them in any other way....

Modern theologians who would eliminate the first eleven
chapters of Genesis from the realm of true history are guilty
of removing the foundations from all future history. They, in
effect, reject the teachings of Peter and Paul and all other
B ibiical writers as naive superstition and the teachings ofthe
infallible Christ as deceptive accommodationism. The "frame¬
work hypothesis" of Genesis, in any of its diverse forms, is noth¬
ing but neo-orthodox sophistry and inevitably leads eventu¬
ally to complete apostasy. It must be unequivocally rejected
and opposed by Bible-believing Christians (1974a, pp. 244,

247).

307

Miscellaneous Compromises of the Genesis Record

It seems fitting that I close this chapter with a quotation from
G. Richard Culp in his book, Remember Thy Creator:

We stand either with God and H is teaching of creation, or we
stand with the evolutionist in opposition to H im. The issues
are sharply drawn; there can be no compromise. Y ou are
either a Christian or an evolutionist; you cannot be both. God
wants prophets, not politicians: not diplomats, but soldiers
in the spiritual sense (1975, p. 163).

308

Chapter 13

What Is Wrong With
Creation Compromises?

T oday the constant pressure on B ibie believers to compro¬
mise the Word of God is intense. Maybe it always has been
that way; but it seems to begetting worse. This pressure comes from
a variety of sources—some more powerful than others. What causes
one person discomfort or distress may hold absolutely no sway over
another.

First, there is peer pressure. Asa person interacts in religious,
social, occupational, or other similar settings, he may find that the
views he holds are not the same as those of the people around him.
[Especially is this true in the context of the creation/ evolution con¬
troversy.] Everyone wants to be accepted among friends and peers.
Butin certain instances, "being accepted” requires compromise, or
complete abandonment, of certain beliefs that may be of both an im¬
portant and a long-standing nature. The pressure to conform be¬
cause "everyone's doing it," or because "everyone believes it,” can
be acute.

309

What Is Wrong With
Creation Compromises?

Second, there is the desire to be intellectually and/ or politically
correct. Surely it would be safe to say that most of us desire to be
"accepted” by friends, family, coworkers, etc. Few people actually
want to be the "odd-man-out.” At times, it seems that it is accept¬
able to be an individualist only so long as you are an individualist will¬
ing to conform to the group. Whatever is viewed currently as fash¬
ionable—whatever is in vogue—is what makes a person a valued,
worthwhile member of the group. Conversely, those beliefs or ac¬
tions deemed "unacceptable" according to group standards cause
the group's approval to diminish or be withheld.

Third, there is the pressure of what might best be called a strictly
"academic" setting. This type of pressure is altogether different than
the kind that occurs as the result of a friendly discussion around the
water fountain at work or in the neighborhood car pool, because this
is a setting in which a person is taught two things: (a) evolution is a
fact of science; and (b) all "smart" people believe it. The truth of the
matter is, almost everyone wants to be considered as smart. In most
modern academic settings, it is "smart" to believe in evolution. And,
of course, in most of those same settings it is "not smart" to believe
in either God or the B ibie as H is inspired Word. And it real ly is not
smart to believe in creation! Itisasad-but-truefactthat, asone writer
stated.

If you enter a U niversity C ampus today and declare that you
are a creationist you may be ridiculed as ignorantthough you
may be ten times as well-informed on the subject as the rid-
iculer. This is nothing new. A desire for conformity to fashion
has existed since the beginning of history (Camp, 1972, p.

207).

The pressure to compromise is very real, and often worsens with
each passing day.

T here are many reasons to compromise. B ut there is one good
reason notto: Truth never has been determined by popular
opinion or majority vote. T ruth is determined by God and God
alone (j ohn 17:17), and that never will change (Matthew 24:35).

310

What Is Wrong With
Creation Compromises?

J esus, in H is beautiful Sermon on the Mount, explained quite clearly
that "the majority" would not find their way to heaven (M atthew 7:
13-14). It is not enough to be among friends. It is not enough to go
along with the crowd. It is not enough to be in the majority. M oses,
in Exodus 23:2, reminded the Israelites: "Thou shalt notfollow a mul¬
titude to do evil." What is important is being on the side of Truth. In
the end, nothing else really matters.

Nor is compromise justified by "sincerity." It is not uncommon
to hear someone say, "B ut he (or she) is so sincere. H ow could they
be wrong?" Sincerity, however, is not the determining factor in de¬
ciding whether or not a person is correct. In 2 Samuel 6:6ff., the
story is told of how King David had the Ark of the Covenant load¬
ed onto a cart to be transported. Asa man by the name of Ahio was
driving the cart, the text says simply that "the oxen stumbled" (vs. 6).
Ahio's brother, U zzah, apparently fearing that the A rk was about
to tumble from the cart and be damaged or destroyed, "put forth his
hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it." But the text goes on
to note that "the anger of j ehovah was kindled against him there
for his error; and there he died" (vs. 7, emp. added). Why, exactly,
did God strike Uzzah dead? God's commandments to the people of
Israel were plain; they were not to touch the holy things of God (N um-
bers4:15). Uzzah may have been sincere, but he disobeyed—and
perished (notice that Uzzah incurred God's righteous indignation
"for his error"). Saul was completely sincere in his persecution of
thechurch (Acts22:19-20; Galatians 1:13; 1 Corinthians 15:9).
Y et God struck him blind (Acts 9:3-9). God does not want just sin¬
cerity; H e wants obedience (j ohn 14:15).

THE ERROR OF CREATION COMPROMISES

The thesis of this book is that compromises of the Genesis ac¬
count of creation not only are unnecessary, but wrong. While they
may not always spring from ill motives, in the end they all pro¬
duce the same unpleasant results. C hrist said that "every good tree
bringeth forth good fruit; but the corrupt tree bringeth forth evil

311

What Is Wrong With
Creation Compromises?

fruit” (Matthew 7:17). One verse before that, Healso said that "by
their fruits ye shall know them," In this day and age, Bible believers
desperately need to be more active "fruit inspectors." The compro¬
mises offered in place of the historical account of creation as record¬
ed in Genesis 1, and as confirmed by writers in both the Old and
N ew Testaments, are the "corrupt trees" of which J esus spoke. The
damage that such compromises have inflicted, and continue to in¬
flict, is the evil fruit. Perhaps if more C hristians could see those fruits,
they would not be so quick to compromise.

"THE BLINDNESS OF PRECONCEIVED OPINION”

C hades Darwin once accused some of his opponents of what he
called "the blindness of preconceived opinion” (1958, p. 444). One
cannot help but wonder if that same accusation might be leveled
against those who wish to compromise the Genesis record by incor¬
porating into it various aspects of the G eneral Theory of Evolution,
for it is their "preconceived opinion" that evolution is true—not any
statement from God's Word—which leads them to such a conclu¬
sion. The late, eminent United Nations scientist A.E. Wilder-Smith,
in his book, Man's Origin: Man's Destiny, wrote:

If the chance processes of evolution really are the motive force
behind the upward surge of nonliving matter to complex life,
and if the Bible is really telling us that life originated in this
way, all we can ask ourselves is this: Why does the author
of the Bible not speak up and express himself more
plainly in this matter? Why does he not tell us more di¬
rectly the truth about the role played by chance in creation?

If Genesis really describes a slow process of upward devel¬
opment by chance over millions of years, why does its au¬
thor not say so? Surely these facts could have been expressed
more clearly, even in primitive language and times, if God had
wished to convey to us the idea of chance operating through
millions of years with natural selection as the prime motive
force of creation instead of God Himself (1975, p. 37, emp.
added).

312

What Is Wrong With
Creation Compromises?

This question has not been treated fairly or answered adequately
by proponents of theistic evolution, progressive creation, thresh¬
old evolution, and other compromises of Genesis 1. There is no the¬
istic statement that suggests God used any of these methods. Why
is this the case? The fact is, H e said just the opposite.

...once we admit that divine intervention has occurred at all,
there is no way to determine just where and how except by
divine statement. Surely this must be obvious.

If we can accept any intervention at all, we can accept the ul¬
timate intervention, which is creation. There is no suggestion
here of dishonesty on the part of the theistic evolutionist but
certainly there is grave inconsistency. God could have accom¬
plished the origin of life in any way H e chose, by evolution
or by creation, but an admission that there is a God and that
H e made such an accomplishment in any way, means that
wearetotally dependent upon H is revelation to determine
which way. H is revelation declares creation, not evolution
(Camp, 1972, p. 206, emp. in orig.).

The "blindness of preconceived opinion" has prompted some to
remove G od as the C reator of H is own U niverse, and relegate H im
to the status of "H onorary C reator. ” A nd all of this has occurred
in spite of the fact that there is no biblical evidence for the compro¬
mising theories, and vast amountsof evidence against them. Rob¬
ert Taylor summed up the matter like this: "This writer may be very
dense of mental powers, but he cannot see where Almighty God
is afforded any degree of honor by saying that he occupied a super¬
visory post in some remote corner of evolutionary thought and de¬
velopment" (1974, 116[1]:2).

TURNING THE SAVIOR INTO A LIAR

0 ne of the first things students learn in freshman philosophy clas¬
ses is that any doctrine that implies a false doctrine is itself false.
This is true in every area of life. Each of the compromises discus¬
sed in this book should be rejected on that account alone. Each of
these compromises not only postulates an unscriptural old-Earth

313

What Is Wrong With
Creation Compromises?

scenario, but has man appearing as the end product of some sort
of long, meandering "creation process." During H is earthly tenure,
Christ discussed human origins and commented that man and wo¬
man had been here "since the beginning of the creation" (Mark 10:
6). If the compromising theories are correct, J esus is not. Being a
member of the Godhead, H e is omniscient. Therefore, H e had to
have known the truth of the matter. B ut instead of revealing it, H e
lied. Yet Peter spoke of J esus as One Who "did no sin" (1 Peter 2:
22). The writer of H ebrews reiterated that point (4:15). The com¬
promising theories, whether they intend to or not, accuse Christ
of lying. Such an accusation, however, is false. And any doctrine
that implies a false doctrine is itself false. The late G us N ichols once
wrote:

Since) esus endorsed the Genesis record of the mi¬
raculous creation of man and woman, this record is
true. If it is not, J esus is a false Christ. Thus, theistic evo¬
lution overthrows faith in Christ, and thereby overthrows faith
in Christianity.... Y es, the theory that G od created the world
by means of organic evolution rejects the B ibie account of
creation in Genesis, and rejects Christ who endorsed these
writings, and in so doing makes C hrist an ignoramus and the
Christian religion a false religion. It is a fact thattheistic evo¬
lution is more dangerous and misleading, more deceptive,
and overthrows the faith of more people, than avowed athe¬
istic evolution and atheism (1972, p. 24, emp. added).

Taylor also commented on this point.

For years we have been warning young people what an es¬
pousal of theistic evolution does to j esus Christ.) esus went
on record asaccepting the fact that man and woman were
made at the beginning.... Evolution does not believe human¬
ity was made but slowly evolved through long eons of time,
j esus said humanity existed from the beginning and M ark has
his affirmation of man's having existed from the beginning of
creation. Evolution does not believe humanity has existed from
the beginning. If evolution be true,) esus is proved to bean un¬
reliable witness of truthfulness in Matthew 19:4 and Mark
10:6 (1974, 116[1]:6).

314

What Is Wrong With
Creation Compromises?

No Bible believer ever should accept, or ask others to accept, a doc¬
trine that impugns the sinless nature of the Savior, and turns H im
into a liar.

MAKING MAN "THE NAKED APE"

In 1967, Desmond M orris, who at the time was an eminentzo-
ologist and curator of mammals at the London Zoological Society,
authored a book that subsequently became a best-seller, H e titled
his volume. The Naked Ape, and used it to propagate the idea that
man evolved from ape-like creatures millions of years ago—a view
accepted by many who seek to compromise the creation account,
H elmutThielicke, a prominent European theologian, wrote: "Often
our dreams, which we cannot control by our will, are an appalling
reminder that we have our roots in the animal kingdom, M en are
higher animals, related to the fish, the dogs, and the cats” (1961,
pp, 64-65, emp, added). In his 1990 book, Genesisand the Big
Bang, Gerald L, Schroeder defended a similar position,

,,,we must acknowledge that a form of animal life that was
very much like human life predated Adam and Eve, This lat¬
ter option is not in contradiction with the established tradition
on which I am relying. Well within the scope of biblical tradi¬
tion is the fact of a directed evolution of man, one that arises
from the pristine matter of the universe (p, 149, emp, inorig,).

Seven years later, in his 1997 volume. The Science of God, Dr,
Schroeder apparently had not changed his mind.

The first step in a rapprochement between science and the
Bible is for each camp to understand the other. Distancing
the Bible from a few misplaced theological shibboleths will
do wonders in furthering this mutual understanding,,,. The
mistaken shouts of protest against the imagined heresy of
gravity have faded to distant echoes. As later chapters argue,
the same will happen with the more recenttheological cries
directed against evolution. The biblical account of animal
life's development, which amounts to a mere eight verses
(!), will have no problem with the final scientific understand¬
ing of how animal life evolved, ,,,the universe developed

315

What Is Wrong With
Creation Compromises?

from its chaotic beginning, through the start of life, and on
to the appearance of humankind (pp. 11-12, 73, emp.
added, parenthetical item in orig.).

While Thielicke is a theologian and Schroeder is a scientist, they both
have two things in common: (a) they profess to believe in the God
of the B ibie; and (b) they advocate the view that man sprang from
animal life via an evolutionary process. Others, while not willing to
go as far these two writers and advocate that man actually evolved
from animals, nevertheless have opted for scenarios that should give
a cautious reader pause, especially in light of C hrist's statements in
M ark 10:6 and M atthew 19:4. For example, progressive creation¬
ist Hugh Ross has written:

Man is unique among all species of life. By "spirit" the Bible
means "aware of God and capable of forming a relationship
with H im." Evidence of man's spiritual dimensions would in¬
clude divine worship, shown by religious relics, altars, and
temples. From the Bible's perspective, decorating, burial of
dead, or use of tools would not qualify as conclusive evidence
of the spirit.... While bipedal, tool-using, large-brained homi-
nids roamed the earth at least as long ago as one million years,
evidence for religious relics and altars dates back only about
8,000 to 24,000 years. Thus, the secular anthropological
date for the first spirit creatures is in complete agree¬
ment with the biblical date.... According to Genesis 1,
the origin of the universe predates the six days of creation,
while the origin of man occurs at the very end of the six days.

Thus, the creation of the universe would predate by
far the creation of man (1991, pp. 159,160, emp. added).

Davis A. Young has accepted a similar, if not identical, position:
"M an is created after the other animals have been formed. M an is
the crown, the culmination of creation. Paleontology has discovered
the same. Man isa very recentinhabitantofthe earth.... Again
there is no conflict between the Bible and science” (1977, p.
132, emp. added).

But all this does conflict with the Bible! And no amount of pos¬
turing is going to eliminate that plain statement of fact. First, Christ
stated that man and woman have been on the Earth "since the be-

316

What Is Wrong With
Creation Compromises?

ginning of the creation." Clayton, England, Ross, Schroeder, Sears,
Y oung, and others advocate the belief that man is a "very recent in¬
habitant" of the Earth, Both positions simply cannot be true. What
we have to decide is this: Who are we going to believe—J esus (the
Son of God, through Whom the worlds were created; J ohn l:lff.),
or modern-day compromisers who are intent upon ignoring what
God's Word has to say and who defer instead to current pseudo¬
scientific theories that have been established and defended primar¬
ily by those who do not even believe in God in the first place?

Second, man is not a "higher animal," and there was no "form
of animal life that was very much like human life" that "predated
Adam and Eve." Such statements contradict both 0 Id and New Tes¬
tament doctrine on such issues. Andrews has said, for example:

Adam and Eve were not beings whose bodies were prepared
in someway by a process of evolution; they did not emerge
from apehood, but were special creations of God. According
to the creationist, man was not derived from pre-existing ani¬
mal stock, butdirectlyfrom the "dustof the ground," a physi¬
cal beingindeed, butone made also intheimageofGod....

Let us now consider how theistic evolution deals with the na¬
ture and origin of man. First of all, evolution does not see hu¬
man origins in terms of one unique individual, Adam, and his
equally unique wife. According to evolution, it is not individ¬
uals that evolve, but populations. W hether we think of amoeba,
mice, or men, it is notthe individual that climbs dramatically
up the ladder of evolutionary development, but the popula¬
tion as a whole. N 0 accepted evolutionary theory claims that
evolution occurs at the level of the individual....

If evolution is true, therefore, we do not have a unique indi¬
vidual, Adam, but rather a population of emergent human¬
kind. Adam can only be a representative man, a kind of sym¬
bol for mankind. If this view is adopted, however, it creates
great difficulty in the interpretation of certain scriptures, no¬
tably Romans 5 and I Corinthians 15 (1986, pp. 86,88).

Schroeder has suggested that prior to Adam there was "a form of
animal life that was very much like human life." This is not cor¬
rect.

317

What Is Wrong With
Creation Compromises?

It is significant also that Gen. 2:20 records that man surveyed
cattle and birds and beasts of the field but that "for the man
there was not found a helper for him." Regardless of the lit¬
erary form of the Genesis account, the message here is loud
and clear. Man, Adam, is distinct from all the animals he sur¬
veyed, and there was no one like him. This is a completely im¬
possible concept under the theory of evolution, where Adam
would have been one of several anthropoid hominids who
were approaching the status of H omo, through a series of mu¬
tations. There would have been many other pre-men and -wo¬
men like him or at least a number of them. Certainly he would
not have surveyed all of the animal kingdom and found no
one who would be a helpmeet for him (Zimmerman, 1972,
p. 114).

Try as they might, theistic evolutionists and progressive creation¬
ists cannot force the Genesis account into agreement with evolution.
God has the inspired text too well protected.

THE PROBLEM WITH EVE

Theistic evolution and its counterparts should be rejected because
they cannot explain Eve. The B ibie teaches that from the beginning
there were male and female (M atthew 19:4) with capability of repro¬
duction (Genesis 1:28). Theistic evolution contends that the sexes
evolved. Wilder-Smith addressed this contradiction.

B ut surely it is going to be very difficult to honestly interpret
the biblical account of origins in a consistently evolutionary
context, in spite of all the heroic efforts of sincere theistic evo¬
lutionists. Is not the account of Eve's miraculous surgical or¬
igin from Adam's side sufficient to prove that the Bible is not
describing here any natural evolutionary chance process mod¬
ified by natural selection through millions of years? Eve was
taken during sleep directfrom Adam's side, which is surely
not, by any stretch of the imagination, a description of the
evolutionary process....

The account of Eve's arrival on the scene, if we take the B i-
ble seriously, surely cuts out the possibility of any "natural"
evolutionary process over millions of years as the total expla¬
nation of man's origin. The biblical accountisthatof a plainly

318

What Is Wrong With
Creation Compromises?

miraculous and nonuniformitarian origin, of woman at least. It
represents a complete break with normal methods of repro¬
duction in the whole higher animal kingdom. Evolutionary pro¬
cesses cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called up¬
on to explain it (1975, pp. 41,42).

After discussing the inconsistencies between various compromises
and the actual creation account in regard to the creation of woman,
Davidheiser wrote:

A theistic evolutionist should honestly admit, "I do not be¬
lieve the creation account," for when he attempts to inter¬
relate the two positions, he necessarily finds evolution incom¬
patible with Scripture (1973, 3:50).

Dr. Davidheiser was right when he urged theistic evolutionists (and,
by implication, progressive creationists) to admit that they do not
believe the Genesis account of creation, 0 ne cannot consistently be¬
lieve both the biblical record of origins and the evolutionary position,

A "SOUL-LESS NAKED APE"?

Theistic evolution is wrong because it cannot explain where, or
how, man acquired his God-given soul. Lindsell observed:

T heistic evolutionists must cross another bridge that is nar¬
row and perilous. They cannotfor one moment postulate that
lower forms of animal life had souls such as we find in H omo
sapiens today. Thus at whatever point in the evolutionary
process some animal became man, God must have created
and implanted in man the soul that distinguishes him from
animals. To put it another way, when did the imago dei get
into man which made man man? Something was added at
some point to theevolutionary spiral. That something was
not there before. It came about by direct divine intervention
—God added a new component that did not spring from na¬
ture.

If this be true, why need we suppose that the body of
man came through an evolutionary process when the
soul did not? (1977, p. 17, emp. added).

319

What Is Wrong With
Creation Compromises?

Bales discussed the inconsistency of theistic evolution in this re¬
gard when he wrote:

To be consistent evolutionists, theistic evolutionists must main¬
tain that the image of God, in man, was evolved. If they call
on God and a miracle to get the image of God in man, why
so hesitantto call on God and a miracle for the giving of the
life of the body to a physical body formed ofthedustofthe
earth? Their non-theistic evolutionistic colleagues will not find
the creation of the image of God in man any more acceptable
than the creation of the body of man. What do theistic evolu¬
tionists affirm of the origin of the image of God? (1974,116
[4]:53).

DID MAN "FALL''-OR "RISE"?

Surely one of the most serious problems with theistic evolution
and similar compromises is the theological doctrine of the fall of man
into sin, 0 nee again those who are so willing to compromise the text
would do better simply to admit that they do not believe the bibli¬
cal record of origins.

If evolution is true and if a man evolved from lower forms of
life, whether through a mechanical process as Darwin pro¬
posed or through acts of God in accordance with theistic evo¬
lution, there was no first man who stood distinctly separate
from the animal kingdom, but merely a gradual blending from
animal to man. Withoutan Adam and Eve, itfollowsthat
there was no fall of man as recorded in Genesis. But the atone¬
ment of C hrist is based upon the fall of man as a real historic
event. If evolution is true, then, whether mechanistic or the¬
istic, no historic fall of man occurred, and thus no Redeemer
is needed to save us from our sins. If we are not a fallen peo¬
ple, unable to save ourselves, but a product of our animal an¬
cestry, gradually improving and moving toward perfection,
Christwasonly a martyr, a good man ahead of H is time but
notthe Saviour, the Redeemer (Davidheiser, 1973, 3:50-
51).

Lindsell asked:

The evolutionary approach forces us into a hermeneutic which
regards the creation account as saga or myth rather than his¬
tory and fact. This in turn does gross violence to even didactic

320

What Is Wrong With
Creation Compromises?

portions of the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments and
creates other problems for which there are no answers. The
ApostlePaul builds his theology of redemption in Romans
around the first and the second A dams. J esus for Paul is the
second Adam. The first Adam was the inhabitant of the Gar¬
den of Eden, our first ancestor through whom...sin with all
of its consequences came. A nd it was the first man's sin that
made necessary the second Adam's sacrifice on the cross
of Calvary. To argue that the first Adam was a mythical fig¬
ure while holding that the second Adam was true man boggles
the imagination and turns the Scripture on its head. M ore-
over, ifthere wasno first Adam, whence did...sin come? (1977,
pp. 17-18).

A MILLION CONTRADICTIONS-
NOT A MILLION YEARS

It would take a veritable encyclopedia to list the many contra¬
dictions between the various creation compromises and the Gen¬
esis account of origins. 0 ne almost is tempted to say: "There are a
million of them!" While it is impossible to discuss each, I would like
to offer the following list, which has been combined from a variety
of sources (Culp, 1975, pp. 154-155; Thompson, 1977, pp, 109-
123,215-235; Niessen, 1980, pp. 17-22; Overton, 1981, pp. 117-
118; Morris, 1984, pp, 119-120; Hayward, 1985, p. 14;J ackson,
1987, pp, 127-129; Kautz, 1988, pp. 24-25).

1. The Genesis narrative states that light existed before the Sun
was made (Genesis 1:3,16), while evolution contends that the
Sun was Earth's first light,

2. M OSes declared that the waters existed before dry land ever ap¬
peared (Genesis 1:2,6,9). Evolution alleges that Earth's first wa¬
ters gradually seeped out of its interior to form the vast oceans.

3. Scripture teaches that the first biological forms of life upon the
Earth were plants (Genesis 1:11), whereas evolution argues
that the initial life forms were marine organisms (see Sagan,
1980, p. 30; Fortey, 1997, pp, 3-28).

321

What Is Wrong With
Creation Compromises?

4. The Bible teaches that fruit-bearing trees existed before fish were
created (Genesis 1:11,20), but evolution contends that fish evolved
long before fruit-bearing trees (see Sagan, 1980, p. 33).

5. Genesis states that plants came into being before the Sun was
made (Genesis 1:11,14ff.), whereas evolution suggests that the
Sun was burning millions of years before the first plants.

6. M OSes taught that birds were made on the fifth day of the cre¬
ation week, and that "creeping things” (which would include
both insects and reptiles) were brought into existence on the
sixth day (Genesis 1:21,24); evolution asserts that birds devel¬
oped long after both insects and reptiles (see Fortey, 1997, pp.
222-237,261-288).

7. The Genesis account reveals that living creatures were created
according to individual groups, and thereafter each reproduced
after its own "kind" (Genesis 1:11,12,21,24,25). According to
evolutionary theory, all living organisms derive from a common,
primitive life-source (see Sagan, 1980, pp. 30-31).

8. The biblical record teaches that man was fashioned from the
dust of the ground (Genesis2:7; 3:19; 1 Corinthians 15:45; 2
Corinthians 5:1), but evolution suggests that humans ultimately
descended from ape-like creatures (see J ohanson, et al., 1994).

9. The Bible teaches that the first humans were made with dis¬
tinctive sexual characteristics—male and female (Genesis 1:27;
2:7,22; Matthew 19:4); evolution suggests that sexes "evolved"
approximately two billion years ago in a process that "must
have been agonizingly slow" (Sagan, 1980, p. 31).

10. The Bible is plain in its teaching that mankind has existed on
Earth "from the beginning of the creation" (Matthew 19:4; Mark
10:6; Romans 1:20), thus virtually "from the foundation of the
world" (Isaiah 40:21; Luke 11:50-51). Conversely, evolutionists
teach that man is a "J ohnny-come-lately" to the planet (cf. Sagan,
1980, p. 33; Fortey, 1997, p. 16-"lmagine that the history

322

What Is Wrong With
Creation Compromises?

of the world is represented by a clockface, say, then the ap¬
pearance of 'blue green' bacteria in the record happened at
about two o'clock, while invertebrates appeared at about ten
o'clock, and mankind, like Cinderella suddenly recalling the
end of the ball, at about one minute to midnight,").

11. Genesis declares that man was appointed to exercise domin¬
ion over "every living thing that moveth upon the earth" (Gen¬
esis 1:28), but evolution argues that multiplied millions of crea¬
tures already had lived and become extinct eons before man ev¬
er set foot upon the Earth, hence before he had opportunity to
have dominion over them.

12, M OSes affirmed that God's work of creation was "finished" with
the completion of the sixth day (G enesis 2:1-2). Evolution, on
the other hand, requires that some sort of creative process has
continued, hammering out new forms of living organisms across
the many eons of time since life first began. [The famous evo¬
lutionist of Harvard, KirtleyF, Mather, wrote that evolution is
"not only an orderly process, it is a continuing one. Nothing
was finished on any seventh day; the process of creation is still
going on. The golden age for man—if any—is in the future, not
in the past" (1960, pp. 37-38).]

13. The Word of God teaches that man has a soul that will live for¬
ever (1 Corinthians 15:35-58; cf. Thompson, 2000a); evolution
teaches that man is wholly mortal (cf. Huxley, 1960c, 3:252-
253—"The earth was not created; it evolved. So did all the ani¬
mals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind
and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion," Cf. also M a-
ther, 1970, pp. 37-38-"The spiritual aspects of the life of man
are just as surely a product of the processes called evolution as
are his brain and nervous system.").

14, Adam, according to the Bible, was to name the animals (Gen¬
esis 2:19); evolutionary geologists contend that most of the an¬
imals were extinct long before man appeared on the Earth,

323

What Is Wrong With
Creation Compromises?

15. Genesis 1:31 records that God surveyed everything He had
created and called it "very good.” Evolutionists claim that most of
these things did not even survive to that point, and the groaning
world that did survive until man's appearance was far from per¬
fect (cf. H ull, 1991, 352:486; Russell, 1961, p. 73).

16. The Genesis account speaks of the early Earth as having been
designed specifically for man's habitation; evolutionary theory
postulates an early Earth endowed with a reducing atmosphere
that provided no free oxygen (seeThaxton, et. al., 1984, pp.
14-41,69-98).

17. The Bible speaks of mankind as being created with a moral
nature (Genesis 1:26-27, etal.; cf. Thompson, 2000b, pp. 157-
181); according to evolution, mankind is by nature amoral.
[Famed British evolutionist Richard Dawkins commented: "Y ou
are for nothing. Y ou are here to propagate your selfish genes.
There is no higher purpose in life" (as quoted in Bass, 1990,
124[4]:60); American evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson
described "good and evil, right and wrong” as "concepts irrele¬
vant in nature" (1967, p. 346).]

18. The Scriptures portray early civilizations as producing sophis¬
ticated musical instruments (Genesis 4:21) and refining alloys
(Genesis 4:22), as well as building such structures as the ark
of N oah (G enesis 6:14-16) and the Tower of B abel (G enesis 11:
3-6). Evolution, contrariwise, presents early man as quite primi¬
tive and technologically immature (cf. Birdsell, 1972, pp. 192-
363).

19. According to Genesis, Adam was endowed with language from
the first day of his creation; evolutionary theory postulates that
language evolved slowly over long periods of time as man strug¬
gled to develop means of communication (cf. Birdsell, 1972,
pp. 335-336; Diamond, 1992, pp. 141-167).

324

What Is Wrong With
Creation Compromises?

20. The biblical record is clear that Adam's responsibility was to tend
theGarden ofEden (Genesis2:9,15-16); Abel, his son, wasa
farmer by occupation (Genesis4:2). Evolutionary theory, how¬
ever, asserts that agriculture developed late in man's history (cf.
Diamond, 1992, pp, 180-191).

21. Throughout Scripture, there are events that God hasorches-
trated (e.g., the Flood, the long day of J oshua, et al.) that can¬
not be called in any sense of the word "uniformitarian" in na¬
ture. Y et one of the cardinal tenets of evolutionary dogma (and
the one that is the foundation of almost all evolutionary-based
dating systems) is uniformitarianism. [G eologist C harles Felix
wrote: "Uniformitarianism is the great underlying princi¬
ple of modern geology! ...Uniformitarianism endures, partly
because it seems reasonable and the principle is considered ba¬
sic to other fields of study, but it also persists because this isthe
only way to arrive at the enormous time-frame requi red
for placement of slow evolutionary processes. It is prob¬
ably correct to state that evolution depends on the unqualified
acceptance of U niformitarianism! (1988, pp. 29,30, emp. in
orig.); cf. Eiseley, 1961, p. 115.]

22. According to Genesis, the creation took place in six literal, 24-
hour days; evolution is alleged to have taken place over billions
of years.

EVOLUTION AND GOD'S NATURE

Lastly, I urge rejection of compromising theories that are based,
in whole or in part, on the dogma of evolution because evolution
is inconsistent with G od's nature. As evidence I offer the following.

(a) Evolution is inconsistent with G od's omnipotence; since FI e
has all power, FI e is capable of creating the U niverse in an in¬
stant—or in six literal days—rather than having to stretch it
out over eons of time. [For a powerful (albeit inadvertent) ad¬
mission of this fact on the part of progressive creationists, see

325

What Is Wrong With
Creation Compromises?

Schroeder, 1997, p. 73—"Surely an infinite Creator did not
require six days or even six pico-seconds to produce the uni¬
verse we know."]

(b) Evolution is inconsistent with God's personality. If making
man in H is own image (Genesis 1:26-27) was the goal of H is
alleged evolutionary process, why would God have waited until
the very tail-end of geologic time, and used such a long, drawn-
out, wasteful, inefficient process before creating personalities?
N 0 personal fellowship was possible with the rocks and seas,
or even with dinosaurs and gliptodons. Speaking to this very
point, British agnostic Bertrand Russell noted:

We are told that...evolution is the unfolding of an idea
which has been inthemindofGodthroughout. Itap-
pears that during those ages. ..when animals were tor¬
turing each other with ferocious horns and agonizing
stings, 0 mnipotence was quietly waiting for the ultimate
emergence of man, with his still more widely diffused cru¬
elty. Why the C reator should have preferred to reach H is
goal by a process, instead of going straight to it, these
modern theologians do not tell us (1961, p. 73).

(c) Evolution is inconsistent with God's omniscience. The history
of evolution, as interpreted from the fossil record by evolu¬
tionary geologists, is filled with extinctions, misfits, evolution¬
ary cul-de-sacs, and other similar evidences of very poor plan¬
ning. The very essence of evolution, in fact, is just the oppo¬
site of planning. Earlier in this volume, I quoted David H ull,
who wrote:

[Thejevolutionary process is rife with happenstance,
contingency, incredible waste, death, pain and horror.
...Whatever the God implied by evolutionary theory
and the data of natural history may be like, H e is not the
ProtestantGod of waste not, wantnot. H e isalso not
a loving G od who cares about H is productions. H e is
noteven the awful God portrayed in the book of] ob.
[H e] is careless, wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical.
H e is certainly not the sort of god to whom anyone would
be inclined to pray (1991, 352:486).

326

What Is Wrong With
Creation Compromises?

(d) Evolution is inconsistent with God's purposiveness. If God's
ultimate purpose was the creation, and eventual redemption,
of man (as theistic evolutionists presumably believe), why, then,
would H e use a process devoid of purposiveness? As H arvard's
eminent evolutionist, George Gaylord Simpson, wrote: "Pur¬
pose and plan are not characteristic of organic evolution and
are not a key to any of its operations" (1967, p. 293). What
semblance of purpose could there have been in the hundred-
million-year reign and eventual extinction of the dinosaurs, for
example? (see Morris, 1974a, p. 219).

H ow much more would have to be wrong with creation compro¬
mises to convince people to abandon them—all of them!—once and
for all?

327

328

Compromise-
Prelude to Apostasy

A man starting in the fish business hung out a sign with the
message, "Fresh Fish For Sale Today,” and invited every¬
one he knew to the opening, FI is friends eagerly congratulated him
on his exciting new enterprise, but one man gently suggested that
his sign might be improved. Inquired he, "Why the word Today'?
Of course it'stoday; it's not yesterday, and it's nottomorrow," So
the fishmonger removed the word. Another asked, "Why the 'For
Sale'? Everybody knows that what you have is for sale—else why
the store?" And off came the words. Another bemoaned, "Why the
'Fresh'? Y our integrity guarantees every fish to be fresh." Thus, the
"fresh" likewise was deleted. Finally only "Fish" remained, but one
objector complained, "Why the sign? I smelled your fish two blocks
away!"

T his humorous story provides a simple laugh—but a powerful mes¬
sage. Compromise—carried too far—has disastrous results. Pity the
poor fishmonger who listened ever so carefully to the impassioned
urgings of those around him. Were his advisers trying to be helpful?
Indeed. Were they well-intentioned? To be sure. Were they sincere?
No doubt. Were they ultimately wrong? Yes!

329

Compromise—
Prelude to Apostasy

The verb "compromise” generally is defined as "to adjust or
settle by mutual concessions; to come to agreement by mutual con¬
cession," The concept of compromise is quite popular in our day.
It is used often in social matters, business disputes, foreign relations,
political affairs, and various other areas of life.

Certainly, not all compromise is bad. In the daily routine of life,
on occasion it is necessary to "give a little.” Admittedly, there are
times when each side must move from its old position to a position
closer to the other side—for the sake of peace or mutual advantage.
There are times when compromise not only is necessary, but ben¬
eficial. Rather than argue over whether to paint the building green
or red, perhaps a compromise settlement of blue is in order. Rath¬
er than become angry over whether to buy a compact car or a full-
sized automobile, perhaps the purchase of a mid-sized car would do.
None among us denies that there are times when compromise is
advantageous.

Y ears ago, during what has come to be known as the "restora¬
tion period” in American religious history, it was common to hear
the cry, "unity in matters of doctrine, liberty in matters of opinion,
and charity in all things." What a wonderful attitude such a slogan
exemplifies! Indeed, that attitude should be the basis for every Chris¬
tian's personal walk with God. The idea behind the adage, simply
put, is that sometimes there is room for compromise—and sometimes
there is not.

That is especially true in religious matters. While the Lord was
on the Earth, H e prayed for unity among believers (J ohn 17). He
prayed for such because it not only was desi rable, but possi ble.
History bears out this fact. In Genesis 11:6, forexample, we find
the following summary regarding the unity of the people of that day:
"And] ehovah said, 'Behold they are one people, and they have
all one language; and this is what they begin to do: and now noth¬
ing will be withholden from them, which they purpose to do.' "An
amazing commentary on a people's unity, is it not? 0 ur Lord did
not pray for something that was impossible. Rather, Christ's pray¬
er was for something H e knew very well could become a reality.

330

Compromise—
Prelude to Apostasy

H e also knew the formula for putting the ideal into practice. In
His statements recorded inj ohn 12:48 andj ohn 14:15, Hemade
that clear when H e said: "The word that I spake, the same shall judge
him in the last day,” and "if ye love me, keep my commandments."
Religious unity was to be based on thefactthatGod's Word—as
the objective, inspired, inerrant, authoritative source of knowledge
—is to be inviolate (| ohn 17:17; Matthew 24:35; 2 Timothy 3:16-
17; 2 Peter 1:20-21). While certain topics are open to individual
discretion (as Paul eloquently discussed in Romans 14), there like¬
wise are certain areas—where G od has spoken—that are not. A nd
when G od speaks, that should settle the matter once and for all.

Apparently, however, along the way, the reality of unity some¬
how slipped through our fingers, and division—on matters of doc¬
trine—overtook us. Why so? Perhaps it is because there are those
among us who: (a) are ignorant of what G od said on a particular mat¬
ter; (b) are indifferent to what G od said on a particular matter; (c) do
not intend to acquiesce to what G od said on a particular matter.

R egardless of the reason(s) involved, the fact is that there are many
B ibie believers today who have compromised, and continue to com¬
promise, the Word of God. I suggest that such compromise is a pre¬
lude to apostasy. In some instances, compromisers have "crept
in unaware” (] ude 4), bringing false doctrine with them. H owever,
all too often false teachers have been invited openly to propagate
their false teachings.

Again, I ask, why is this the case? Perhaps it is because some pos¬
sess a spirit of compromise. Effecting a compromise of God's Word
is a favorite tool of the devil. When God specifically told Adam and
Eve not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil (Genesis 3:1-3), who appeared with a compromise for Eve (Gene¬
sis 3:4)? Eve capitulated, and convinced Adam to do likewise. When
M OSes went to P haraoh to tell him to let the children of Israel go,
what was he offered buta compromise ("Go ye, serve the Lord; only
let your flocks and your herds be stayed" Exodusl0:24). Moses re-

33 r

Compromise—
Prelude to Apostasy

fused ("There shall not an hoof be left behind"—Exodus 10:26), be¬
cause it was not what God had commanded. Sanballat and Geshom
wanted to stop N ehemiah's work on the walls of J erusalem (N ehe-
miah 6:2). They mocked his efforts, but to no avail (Nehemiah 4:
1-2). They tried threats (vss. 7-8)-without success. Then, through
their messengers, they came to N ehemiah with a compromise. Y et
the prophet stood firm: "I am doing a great work so that I cannot
come down; why should the work cease, whilst I leave it and come
down to you?” (6:3). They persisted: "Yet they sent unto me four
times after this sort" (6:4a). Nehemiah refused to compromise: "And
I answered them after the same manner" (6:4b).

Of these (and others who could be called to our remembrance),
whose names do we cherish? Today, when Eve is mentioned, we
do not think of a woman to whom we owe a great debt of grati¬
tude because of her compromising attitude. Rather, we hold her in
contempt for that vile act. Today, when M oses is discussed, B ibie
believers recall a man who at first wavered under the tremendous
task given to him (Exodus 2), but who later became known for his
righteous stubbornness in the face of practically incalculable—and
seemingly overwhelming—odds. Today, when Nehemiah is men¬
tioned, B ibIe believers immediately think of a man with singularity
of purpose and unbending devotion to God's Word. With a formi¬
dable task before him, and opposition pressing from every side, he
steadfastly refused to yield on a single point.

COMPROMISE-PRELUDE TO APOSTASY

Not much has changed since the days of Moses and Nehemiah.
[What was itSolomon said about there being "nothing new under
the Sun"?—Ecclesiastes 1:9]Today, efforts are being made by many
within the religious community to compromise the Word of God
and to "water down" the essence of the biblical message. H aving seen
personally the horribly evil fruit that has resulted from some of the

332

Compromise—
Prelude to Apostasy

popular, modern-day compromises of God's Word, it is my firm
conviction that one of the most serious—and certainly one of the
most deadly—is the unrelenting compromise of the Genesis account
of creation, M any Bible believers apparently do not understand that
once the first eleven chapters of Genesis are compromised, the re¬
mainder of the biblical record soon will be as well. Genesis 1-11 can¬
not be surgically removed from the rest of the Bible, as if it were
an unsightly wart or malignant tumor. These chapters are an inte¬
gral part of what God did in history, and they are woven into the
very warp and woof of biblical fabric from start to finish. To allow
compromise on these chapters is to invite compromise elsewhere
throughout the Word of God.

Surely, by the time you have reached this particular point in this
book, the conclusion that serious compromises of Genesis 1-11 have
occurred, and are continuing to occur, has been rendered inescap¬
able by the evidence. But where, exactly, are such compromises
likely to lead? I would like to investigate the answer to that question
in this final chapter.

In 1987, Ralph Gilmore, a professor at Freed-Hardeman Uni¬
versity, presented a series of lectures on theistic evolution at the U ni-
versity's annual lectureship program, M any of his comments were
recorded in a chapter he authored for the lectureship book. Among
those comments were these:

It does make a difference what we believe about the first chap¬
ters of the B ibie because we do not have the prerogative to
"pick and choose" which biblical passages we will accept in¬
to our theology and which we will discard (2 Tim. 3:16-17;

Rev. 22:18-19) [1987, p. 142],

Indeed, it does make a difference what we believe concerning Gen¬
esis 1-11. It is my contention that ultimately the same spirit of com¬
promise that causes a person to doubt the veracity and genuine¬
ness of Genesis 1-11 likewise will affect his thinking on other por¬
tions of Scripture—with disastrous results.

333

Compromise—
Prelude to Apostasy

Compromise is a Prelude to Religious
Liberalism and Modernism

Few people seem to realize how significantly the influence of
Charles Darwin has impacted the modern world. In chapter 3,1 men¬
tioned a 1991 Gallup poll which suggested that almost half (49%)
of the American public, to some extent or another, believed in or¬
ganic evolution, Amazingly, some 40% of these professed a religious
affiliation, I also discussed that in M arch 2000, the N ew Y ork Times
released the results of a poll commissioned by the liberal civil rights
group. People for the American Way, and conducted by dyg, Inc.,
the highly regarded polling and public research firm in Danbury, Con¬
necticut. The results were shocking: 68%said it was "possible to be¬
lieve in evolution while also believing that G od created humans and
guided their development" (seeGlanz, 2000, A-1). This kind of think¬
ing has had a terrible effect on the church, as Davidheiser explained
over thirty years ago.

...the espousal of the theory of evolution leads to compro¬
mises which in turn lead to liberalism, modernism, and a re¬
pudiation of the gospel plan of salvation through the atone¬
ment of C hrist. The history of the last century has shown over
and over that as the evolution theory is accepted by a soci¬
ety, Christian faith deteriorates. With the acceptance of evo¬
lution, the social gospel is substituted for the gospel of sal¬
vation by grace through the atonement of Christ by way of
the cross (1969, pp. 38-39).

E.H. Andrews, addressed this same point when he noted that "our
view of origins affects our interpretation and use of Scripture" (1986,
p. 86). Eventually, of course, the objective standard of the Word
of God becomes little more than a subjective treatise that may,
or may not, be correct in its renderings. Where, then, does this leave
the individual who has "bought into" such a compromise? Kautz
warned:

Fora theistic evolutionist, particularly one who is a theolo¬
gian, to generate in people distrust over the reliability of the
books which constitute the 0 Id and N ew Testaments is, in the

334

Compromise—
Prelude to Apostasy

long run, to affect adversely a person's confidence in God's
actions and promises. The Christian is then faced with the
problem of having to determine which chapters/verses/ books
are trustworthy and which are not—a burden no C hristian
should be made to bear (1988, p. 30).

The end result is that a person eventually slides gently into liberal¬
ism and modernism. From there, it is a slippery slope into complete
and final apostasy—a road far too many have traveled already.

Compromise is a Prelude to
the Loss of a Person's Soul

The degree to which a person's faith is affected by compromise
of the G enesis account of creation depends upon a number of fac¬
tors. Ultimately, however, Culp was correct when he stated:

Atthe same time, the effects of theistic evolution on a man
are profound. H is personal religious standards, his zeal for
testifying for Christ as his Savior, and his belief in the abso¬
lutes of the B ibie are all weakened. 0 ne who doubts the G en¬
esis account will not be the same man he once was... (1975,

p. 160).

Kautz has written in agreement:

If atheistic evolution leads a person away from God totally,
then theistic evolution sets a person on a path which leads
to doubt about the credibility of the Scriptures and ultimately
about Christianity itself (1988, p. 30, emp. in orig.).

The evidence documenting that both men are correct is over¬
whelming. Consider the case of E.O. Wilson of Harvard. Dr. Wil¬
son is considered to be the "father of sociobiology” and is one of
the most brilliant lights in modern evolutionary theory. But it has
not always been so. In speaking of Wilson, H enry M orris wrote:

The decline and fall of Darwin's faith has been echoed in the
experiences of multitudes of others since his day. One of the
top modern-day evolutionists, founder and chief protagonist
of the popular system known as sociobiology, has given this
testimony: "As were many persons in Alabama, I was a born-
again Christian. When I was fifteen, I entered the Southern

335

Compromise—
Prelude to Apostasy

Baptist Church with great fervor and interest in the funda¬
mentalist religion; 1 left at seventeen when I got to the U ni-
versity of Alabama and heard about evolutionary theory"

(1984, p. 113; for documentation on Wilson quotation, see
Wilson, 1982, p. 40).

In commenting on the connection between belief in evolution and
the loss of a person's faith, philosopher H uston Smith observed that
writer M artin Lings was "probably right in saying that 'more cases
of loss of religious faith are to be traced to the theory of evolution
...than to anything else'..." (1982, p. 755).

Why is this the case? Why do so many people ultimately give
up their faith, or see it slowly but systematically destroyed, once
they have accepted the tenets of evolution or theistic evolution?

It is instructive to trace the history of this rebellion through
human history, as recorded in the Bible. In its essentials it
boils down to a conflict between those who worship and serve
the Creator and those "who changed the truth of God into a
lie and worshipped and served the creature more than the
Creator" (Romans 1:25). It is a conflict between God-cen¬
tered and creature-centered religion. Any sort of religion which
denies the C reator the place of absolute primacy and sover¬
eignty in the universe, which prescribes limits of H is action or
power or which seeks to judge H isdeedsor H isWord atthe
bar of human reason, is fundamentally a system of evolution.

The universe or some aspect or component of it is held to be
the focus of ultimate Truth and the idea of G od is accommo¬
dated, if at all, in some derivative place in the system. This
framework appeals to creaturely pride and thus has a strong
appeal to fallen men. Acknowledgment of God's abso¬
lute sovereignty,...requires complete submission of
man's wisdom and will to that of God, and this hu¬
miliation is stubbornly resisted by human nature (Mor¬
ris, 1966, p. 98, emp. added).

D r. M orris has seen, as I (and so many others who deal in the cre¬
ation/ evolution controversy) have seen on a regular basis, literally
hundreds and hundreds of people—young and old alike—who have
lost their faith as a direct result of compromise with evolutionary
doctrine in one form or another. C ompromise—just as it was in the
case of E.O. Wilson-became the prelude to apostasy.

336

Compromise—
Prelude to Apostasy

CONCLUSION

As I was putting the finishing touches on this book, I received a
telephone call from a minister. H e informed me that he was calling
on behalf of two parents who, quite literally, were too distraught to
telephone for themselves. Their 18-year-old son had just come back
to town, having completed the first few weeks of classes at the uni¬
versity where he went to matriculate after his high school gradua¬
tion. U pon his return home for a "weekend furlough," he had boldly
proclaimed to his parents: "I thought you'd want to know. I don't be¬
lieve in G od any more." P ut yourself in the place of those two par¬
ents for a moment in time. Can you imagine the shock of hearing
those awful, fateful words?

This young man had been a truly wonderful son. H e had been
a genuinely faithful Christian. But he now had returned home from
college a self-avowed atheist. When his parents asked the obvious
question—"Why?!”—he casually replied: "I no longer believe in God
because I have seen the compelling evidence for organic evolution
that was provided by the professor in my required biology class-
evidence which proves that we have descended from ape-like cre¬
atures millions of years ago. Evolution is a scientific fact. Belief
in G od is a myth for spineless sissies and worthless weaklings who
don't know any better.” And so, yet another soul has been lost to
compromise.

It is so very sad to see, in this pilgrimage we call life, people of
obvious talent and ability who could have been such a blessing to so
many, yet who have become counterproductive to the cause of bibli¬
cal truth because of their compromising positions on certain issues.
These people could have influenced numerous souls for Christ—in
this generation and in those yet to come—had they simply retained
their faith in G od's Word and stood firmly upon its doctrinal state¬
ments. Instead, they have opted for compromise themselves, and
have fertilized the soil of many hearts with a compromising philos¬
ophy and an arrogant disposition that subordinates clear biblical
history to the baseless assertions of modern scientism.

337

Compromise—
Prelude to Apostasy

It is my earnest desire that perhaps something I have said in
this book might serve as a warning to Bible believers regarding the
terrible consequences that arise from creation compromises. We
simply cannot cry "peace, when there is no peace" (Ezekiel 13:10).
It also is my earnest desire that perhaps something I have said in
this volume might rescue from the error of their ways those not yet
committed to such a path, that they might once again become use¬
ful and effective tools in the church's apologetic arsenal. What will
the church of the future be like ifthe errors of theistic evolution, pro¬
gressive creationism, and other such compromises are tolerated?
Perhaps the words of the poet, Alexander Pope, can admonish us.

Vice is a monster of such frightful mien.

As to be hated needs but to be seen;

Y et seen too oft’, familiar with her face.

We first endure, then pity, then embrace.

338

That "Loaded"
Questionnaire

INTRODUCTION:

THE HISTORY OF THIS INQUIRY*

I n March 1983,1 received a two-page letter, dated March 14,
from] ack P, Lewis, professor, Harding Graduate School of
Religion, and Chairman of the Religious Affairs Committee of the
Board of Directors, Christian Student Center, U niversity of M issis-
sippi, Oxford, Mississippi. The letter read, in part, as follows.

The Christian Student Center adjacent to the campus of the
University of Mississippi, Oxford, Mississippi, has for a num¬
ber of years presented an annuai iectureship in which a speak¬
er deait with a question confronting university students in the
course of their academic iife. We feei that we have had a se¬
ries of outstanding programs.

* This material appeared originally in Reason & Revelation (February 1984,4:5-12),
the monthly journal on Christian evidences published by Apologetics Press. BertThomp-
son wrote the first two sections: Wayne J ackson wrote the remainder. It is reproduced
here in an abridged form because of its relevance to the subjects this book discusses.

339

That "Loaded” Questionnaire

For our program of February 3,4, and 5,1984, we would like
to have a symposium on "Origins" in which various speak¬
ers would present their viewpoints. We have a few tentative
agreements for participation. The following is an invitation list,
notan acceptance list. We thought you would like to see the
whole proposal. The Chairperson, Theme Speaker, and Mod¬
erator will be Dr. J ack Wood Sears, FI arding U niversity.

1. "The Limitations of Science," Dr. Douglas Shields, Univer¬
sity of Mississippi

2. "An Exegesis of Genesisl and 2," Dr. Clyde Woods, Freed-
Flardeman College

3. "Scientific Creationism," Dr. BertThompson, Alabama
Christian School of Religion

4. "Theistic Evolution," Dr. Niel [sic]Buffalo [sic]. University
of Central Arkansas, Conway, Arkansas

5. "An Argument for Antiquity and Classical Geology," J ohn
Clayton, South Bend, Indiana

6. "Understanding Genesis 1-11 in the Light of Restoration
Principles," Dr. Don England, FI arding University

We do not intend that there be debate or cross-examination
among the speakers. We would like a positive, non-debate set¬
ting.... As chairman of the Religious Affairs Committee of the
Board of Directors of the Center, I have been asked to issue
invitations to participants.... We believe that this will bea very
enlightening and helpful symposium. We hope that you will
find it possible to participate. I will look forward to your reply
at your earliest convenience.

0 n M arch 21,1 wrote D r. Lewis, acknowledging his letter and po¬
litely declining his invitation to participate in the Oxford lectureship.
I explained my decision in light of the following information.

First, Dr. Lewis' letter stated plainly that there would be no "de¬
bate or cross-examination among the speakers,” and that the situa¬
tion would consist of a "positive, non-debate setting." I found this
format unacceptable, because several of the men on the program
were well known for their false teachings on the creation account.
Neal Buffaloe, for example, is the coauthor of the booklet, Creation-

340

That "Loaded” Questionnaire

ism and Evolution (1981), which advocates the position that Gen-
esisl-11 isnotto betaken historically and literally, and thattheistic
evolution is perfectly acceptable. I had written a thorough review
and refutation of the booklet in the A pril/ M ay/J une 1981 issue of
Sound Doctrine published by the Alabama C hristian School of Reli¬
gion (seeThompson, 1981, 6[2]:11-12).

Another of the suggested speakers was J ohn N, Clayton of South
Bend, Indiana. Mr. Clayton's positions on the biblical account of
creation are well known and fully documented. H e is the inventor
and chief proponent of the Modified Gap Theory, and has advocated
numerous other compromises of the creation account as well (see
J ackson and Thompson, 1992). Donald England and J ack Wood
Sears of H arding U niversity both are on record in regard to their un¬
orthodox views of Genesis. Dr. England is the author of the so-cal¬
led Non-World View, which states that Christians err when they as¬
sign any world view to the Genesis text. In addition, he has defend¬
ed the M ultiple-Gap Theory, and has criticized the view that the cre¬
ative days of God were literal, 24-hour periods (see England, 1972,
1983). Dr. Sears has defended theDay-AgeTheory and similar con¬
cepts, and like Buffaloe, Clayton, and England, advocates the view
that the B ibie allows for an ancient Earth. In fact, just eight months
from the arrival of D r. Lewis' letter, I would be debating D r. Sears
in Denton, Texas on these very points.

In my response to Dr. Lewis' letter, I explained that I could not
participate conscientiously on a program—in a "non-debate" setting
—with speakers known to teach this kind of error. H owever, I also
stated that I wished to give the Religious Affairs Committee, and the
Board of Directors of the Christian Student Center at Oxford, the
benefit of the doubt and hope that they simply were unaware of
the erroneous teachings of these men when they issued their invi¬
tations. Therefore, in order to provide documentation for both the
Committee and the Board to see, I enclosed copies of articles, re¬
views, etc., which dealt with these issues. Furthermore, I asked Dr.
Lewis for a reply concerning these matters.

341

That "Loaded” Questionnaire

On March 25, Dr. Lewis sent me a 3-sentence letter, thanking
me for my prompt reply to the invitation, stating that he would refer
my letter to the Board of Directors, and offering his best wishes.
Since then, I have received no further correspondence from him
or any member of the Committee or the Board.

THE SEARS-THOMPSON DEBATE

During the dates of November 13-18,1983 the Annual Denton
Lectureship was held atthe Pearl Street Church of Christ in Den¬
ton, Texas. Each afternoon, a "D iscussion Forum" occurred, dur¬
ing which speakers holding opposite views on a subject met in a de¬
bate setting to discuss these views.

On Monday, November 14, in public debate, I met] ackWood
Sears, then-chairman of the department of biology at H arding U ni-
versity in Searcy, Arkansas on the topic: "The biblical account of
creation allowsfora very ancient Earth." Dr. Sears affirmed the
proposition; I denied it, and affirmed the proposition: "God cre¬
ated the U niverse and all that is in it in six literal days of approxi¬
mately 24 hours each; H e did not employ a system requiring vast
periods or long ages of time to bring the material U niverse to its
present state.” M anuscripts of each speaker's material were pre¬
pared prior to the debate, and appear in the official lectureship book.
Studies in Hebrews (see McClish, 1983, pp. 405-434).*

During the course of the debate, I made several important points
regarding the use in the 0 Id Testament of various H ebrew words
associated with the creation and/ or time elements, including such
words as yom [day] and bara and asah [used in regard to "creating"
or "making"]. Dr. Sears, though completely unable to give any in¬
stances in 0 Id Testament usage that negated my points, neverthe¬
less said that he disputed my conclusions. Then, during his rejoin¬
der, he made the following statements concerning the points I had
raised regarding the 24-hour days of Genesis 1:

* Audio and video tapes of the debate are avaiiable from theofficesof ApologeticsPress.

342

That "Loaded” Questionnaire

By the way, if you'd like some more information about this,
we are collecting—a colleague of mine and I—are collecting
answers to a questionnaire that we've sent out to outstanding
Hebrew scholars both in the church and out of the church in
this country and in Europe, in this country and in foreign
places, and we have yet to find one that will maintain thatthis
has to be a twenty-four hour day. A nd these are conservative
scholars: these are not radicals. This will be given in a lecture¬
ship the first week in February at the U niversity of M ississippi
in Oxford at the University Christian Student Center by my
colleague who is at this time preparing a manuscript on this.

I'll notgo further because I do notwantto jeopardize his man¬
uscript or his problem there.*

It is this questionnaire and the Oxford, M ississippi lectureship to
which Dr. Sears alluded in his Denton speech, that we now wish to
discuss at length.

The lectureship at the U niversity of M ississippi Christian Student
Center in Oxford was held during the dates of February 3-4,1984,
The listing of speakers as given above, however, was altered some¬
what. The Magnolia Messenger, published by Magnolia Bible Col¬
lege in Kosciusko, Mississippi (] anuary 1984), listed in an adver¬
tisement for the lectureship the following speakers and assignments:

"A Scientific Proof for the Existence of God," Dr. Douglas
Shields

"General Evolution and the Fossils," Dr. j ack Wood Sears

"An Exegesis of Genesis 1," Dr. Clyde Woods

"Understanding Genesis 1 & 2 in View of Restoration Prin¬
ciples," Dr. Donald England

The general theme and title of the sixteenth annual University
Christian Student Center lectureship at Oxford was "Creation, Sci¬
ence, and Faith,"

Dr. Sears, in his statement at Denton alluding to a "questionnaire
...sent to outstanding H ebrew scholars," made mention of the fact
that he and "a colleague" were sending a questionnaire to various

* This quotation was transcribed directiy from the debate tapes.

343

That "Loaded” Questionnaire

individuals, and preparing a manuscript regarding the compiled re¬
sults of that questionnaire. The "colleague" to whom Dr, Sears re¬
ferred is Donald England, also of H arding U niversity, The "manu¬
script" to which Dr. Sears referred was, in fact, the presentation that
Dr. England planned to make at the Oxford lectureship.

H ugo M cCord, professor emeritus of Bible and biblical languages,
0 klahoma C hristian C ollege [now 0 klahoma C hristian U niversity of
Science and Arts], and a H ebrew scholar in his own right, received
one of these questionnaires, along with a cover letter on H arding
U niversity stationery, signed by both Sears and England. U pon see¬
ing the nature of the questionnaire, D r. M cC ord answered it, but
chose in addition to "dissect" it, separating each question from the
ones before and after, and placing his comments in the appropri¬
ate places. D r. M cC ord graciously sent us both a copy of the ques¬
tionnaire, and his response to it, 0 n seeing the material, we then
contacted another H ebrew scholar and professor, to see if he, too,
had received the questionnaire. H e had. But, as Wayne] ackson re¬
lates in the next section, the professor refused to answer it because
of the bias built into the questions—bias that practically required a
preconditioned response. This appendix is devoted to an examina¬
tion of that questionnaire.

THAT "LOADED" QUESTIONNAIRE

j ack Wood Sears is a professor of biology at H arding U niver¬
sity, Donald England is a distinguished professor of chemistry at
the same institution. Both of these gentlemen are Christians, and
each has written books in defense of the Bible. Their writings have
not been without merit, and we salute every word of truth that has
issued from their pens. We believe, however, that in one area in
particular, both of these men have seriously compromised biblical
teaching.

Both Sears and England allow for the possible harmonization of
biblical chronology with evolutionary chronology. It must be under-

344

That "Loaded” Questionnaire

stood, of course, that from an evolutionary vantage point, "time”
is crucial. Every evolutionist will painfully concede that unless he is
granted vast eons of time, there is utterly no possibility that macro¬
evolution (i.e., change across phylogenetic boundaries) has occur¬
red. George Wald, Nobel laureate of Harvard, expressed it like this:
"Time is the hero of the plot.... Given so much time, the 'impossi¬
ble' becomes possible, the possible becomes probable, and the prob¬
able becomes virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself per¬
forms the miracles" (1979, p. 294).

But it must be stressed that "time" is not a creator. Impotence
times billions of years is still impotence. A.E. Wilder-Smith thus af¬
firmed:

...the postulation of huge time spans by Darwinists to allow
for the "creative" activity of chance and natural selection to
get to work, doesnot really help to solve the problem in the
least. ...it is nottime itself which is our problem in connec¬
tion with origins, but rather the infinitely more important mat¬
ter of the source of the "planning energy" behind archebi-
opoiesis and order in our universe. This means that the mech¬
anism of evolution postulated by Darwinians cannot really be
influenced by the allowing of huge time spans, which they re¬
gard as the conditio sine qua non for their ideas (1975, p.

147; see also Thompson, 1977, pp. 91-103).

Though Sears and England oppose organic evolution, it is cer¬
tain that both have been influenced by it, and have yielded ground,
to it, especially in the area of geochronology. England has written
that: "Inasmuch as Scripture does not state how old the earth is or
how long life has existed on earth, one is free to accept, if he wishes,
the conclusions of science" (1983, p. 155). Sears, in his book. Con¬
flict and H armony in Science and the Bible, opposed the idea
that the genealogical/ chronological data of the Bible can be used to
determine a relative age for the Earth or mankind (1969, pp. 17-20).

The problem is this: some who have been trained in various sci¬
entific disciplines are quite weak in their knowledge of biblical mat¬
ters. U nfortunately, their scientific training has colored their view of

345

That "Loaded” Questionnaire

biblical truth. Beyond that, however, it is deplorable that men some¬
times attempt to "manipulate" the evidence in order to buttress their
cherished theories. And, if we may kindly say so, that is precisely
what Sears and England have attempted to do via this questionnaire.

In late October of 1983, Sears and England submitted a ques¬
tionnaire to a number of Bible scholars, inquiring about certain por¬
tions of the Scriptures dealing with creation. Though the professors
claimed that they were merely soliciting answers in "the spirit of the
restoration plea" so as to "respect the silence of the Scriptures," a
careful examination of the questionnaire reveals that the real pur¬
pose was to gather support for their well-known views that the G en-
esis record of origins is not necessarily opposed to the time scale
postulated by evolutionists.

The form contained ten questions, along with some brief pre¬
liminary comments. Each of the questions contained a "Y ES” [ ]
or "NO" [ ] space to be checked. But here is a significant factor:
thequestionswerecarefully worded in an attemptto pur¬
posely produce a "NO" answer-in other words, the question¬
naire was "loaded." N ote the following quotation from the cover let¬
ter (dated October 25,1983) written by Sears and England, and ac¬
companying the questionnaire.

We recognize that a simple "yes" or "no" may not be possi¬
ble for some of the questions: however, we would appreci¬
ate such a short answer if possible. If you feel that it is nec¬
essary to check "yes" for any question, we would like
for you to supply additional information such as an
explanatory comment or a literature reference (emp.
added).

As you survey the questions in the subsequent portion of this ap¬
pendix, you will see that they hardly are the epitome of objectivity.
0 ne B ibie professor with whom we communicated, as Dr. Thomp¬
son already has mentioned, also was asked to fill out the question¬
naire, but declined to do so because of its obvious bias. That should
tell you something. The "questionnaire" was prefaced with the fol¬
lowing statements.

346

That "Loaded” Questionnaire

It is believed by many that the Bible teaches an "instanta¬
neous creation." H owever, we would like to know if a care¬
ful, scholarly exegesis of certain words or expressions man¬
dates such a conclusion to the exclusion of "creation by some
sort of process" that may have involved some perceptable
[sic]time lapse. Thefirstfour questions address this problem.

Then follows the first question.

Does the use of the Hebrew word asafi or bara in Genesis
one preclude or exclude some sort of process?

Several things may be observed about this question. First, it is
designed to be answered "No,” and thus to suggest subtly that Gen¬
esis 1 will allow for some sort of developmental "process"—as op¬
posed to a rapid creation. Second, to my knowledge, no compe¬
tent scholar has claimed thatasah ["made" (1:16)] and bara ["cre¬
ated” (1:1)] have any intrinsic implications relative to "time.” This is
a straw man. Third, there are, however, contextual indications,
both in Genesis 1 and in passages elsewhere, which suggest rapid
action in contrast to a protracted, developmental process. Forex-
ample, Professor Raymond Surburg has noted:

The wording of the Genesis account seems to indicate a short
time for the creative acts described. To illustrate, in G enesis
1:11 God literally commands, "Earth, sprout sprouts!" Im-
mediatelyv. 12 records the prompt response to the command
—"The earth caused the plants to go out." The Genesis ac¬
count nowhere even hints that eons or periods of time are
involved. Instantaneous action seems to be what the writer
stresses (1959, p. 60).

M oreover, of Paul's statement concerning the human body—"B ut
now hath God set the members of each one of them in the body,
even as it hath pleased him” (1 Corinthians 12:18)-Greek scholar
W.E. Vine observed:

The tenses of both verbs are the aorist or point tenses and
should be translated "set" and "it pleased" (instead of the per¬
fect tenses, "hath set" and "it hath pleased") and this marks
the formation of the human body in all its parts as a creative

347

That "Loaded” Questionnaire

act at a single point in time, and contradicts the evolution¬
ary theory of a gradual development from infinitesimal mi¬
crocosms (1951, p. 173, parenthetical comment in orig.).

B ut suppose the question above had been worded like this: "Does
the use of the H ebrew words asah and bara in Genesis 1 suggest a
developmental process?” The answer most certainly would have
to be "NO," butthis hardly would have been the response desired
by the two professors!

Finally, it might be asked—what influences motivated the pro¬
fessors to frame the foregoing question, laying the groundwork for
some kind of developmental process that allows for "indefinite pe¬
riods of time” in Genesis 1?

Is the Hebrew word asah or bara time limiting; that is, does
the use of either of these words demand instantaneous cre¬
ation? By "instantaneous" is intended "no perceptable [sic]
time lapse."

This question is completely irrelevant. No one has argued that
a rapid creation, within six literal, consecutive days, is demonstrated
merely by the use of asah or bara. B ut again, let us reverse the mat¬
ter. "Are the H ebrew words asah and bara time expanding; that
is, does the use of either of these words demand vast eons of time?"
The answer, of course, would be a resounding, "NO!" But then, that
would not have left the same impression as the question asked by
the professors.

Does the Hebrew word asah or bara require an exnihilo
[out of nothing] conclusion?

0 nee more the professors are fighting figments of their own imagi¬
nations. Sound scholarship does not contend that ex nihilo creation
is inherent in these H ebrew verbs. What we do contend is this: con¬
textual considerations in Genesis 1, and in other biblical references,
argue for an ex nihilo creation! Gesenius, the father of modern H e-
brew lexicography, wrote:

348

That "Loaded” Questionnaire

Thatthefirstv. ofGenesisteachesthattheoriginal creation
of the world in its rude, chaotic state was from nothing, while
in the remainder of the chapter, the elaboration and distribu¬
tion of matter thus created is taught, the connection of the
whole section shows sufficiently clearly (as quoted by Pear¬
son, 1953, 11:22).

Noted scholarC.F. Keil declared that when bara isintheQal (Kal)
stem in Hebrew, as in Genesis 1:1,

...it always means to create, and is only applied to a divine
creation, the production of that which had no existence be¬
fore. It is never joined with an accusative of material, al¬
though it does not exclude a preexistent material un¬
conditionally, but is used for the creation of man (ver. 27,
ch. V. 1,2), and of everything new that God creates, whether
in the kingdom of nature (Num. xvi.30) or that of grace (Ex.
xxxiv.lO; Ps. li.lO, etc.). In this verse, however, the exis¬
tence of any primeval material is precluded by the object cre¬
ated—"the heavens and the earth" (1971, 1:47).

Oswald!. Allis Stated that a creation ex nihilo "is clearly implied”
in Genesis 1:1 (1951, p. 9), and Edward j. Young wrote: "If in
Genesis 1:1 M oses desired to express the thought of absolute cre¬
ation there was no more suitable word in the H ebrew language at
his disposal [than bara-wjj" (1964, p. 7). Again, one wonders
what attitude prompted the foregoing question from the two pro¬
fessors.

Hebrews 11:3 appears to represent ex nihilo creation.
However, does a careful exegesis of Hebrews 11:3 require
an ex nihilo conclusion?

H ugo McCord gave the following answer to the question:

Hebrews 11:3 statesthatthe worlds were framed by God's
word (rhemati theou), and that God's word did not frame
them outof appearing things (ek phainomenon). Logically
the inference remains that his word could have created the
worlds out of non-appearing things. But that option is so ten¬
uous, and imaginable reason says that H ebrews 11:3 teach-
esan ex nihilo creation. God can create (bara)something

349

That "Loaded” Questionnaire

from existing materials (Isa. 65:18), but none is mentioned
inGenesisl:! norin Hebrewsll:3. Apparentlyhewanted
us to understand a creation out of nothing. If that was not
his intention, his word has misled millions of readers. Com¬
pare: "By the word of J ehovah were the heavens made. And
all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. For he spake,
and it was done; H e commanded, and it stood fast" (Psa.
33:6,9).*

Of Hebrews 11:3, F.F. Bruce observed: "The visible, material uni¬
verse came into being by pure creation—out of nothing. It was not
fashioned from preexistent material, as most pagan cosmogonies
taught" (1972, p. 125).

0 nee more, one cannot but wonder what prompted this ques¬
tion, the obvious design of which was to cast doubt on an ex nihilo
emphasis in Hebrews 11:3. The following comment from Leon Mor¬
ris may shed some lighten the matter: "The suggestion that there
is here [in H ebrews 11:3—wj ] a reference to the formless void of
Genesis 1:2 out of which the present creation was evolved has little
to support it" (1960, p. 172). Surely Sears and England were not sug¬
gesting this—were they? But the questionnaire continues.

Both of us believe that Genesis records a factual yet not ex¬
haustive account of creation events. We believe that the days
of Genesis one were twenty-four hour days, but we largely
believe this from the general impression gained by reading
the text. However, we wish to know if this conclusion is man¬
dated by scripture. We would appreciate your response to
these questions. Please note our emphasis on "principle
of Hebrew grammar or exegesis."

Before considering the next series of questions, some comments
are in order. First, the preceding paragraph is misleading. Though
the professors declare their belief in twenty-four hour creation days,
the subsequent questions are designed to reflect upon the credibil-

* Quotations from Dr. McCord’s response to the professors' questionnaire are repro¬
duced from the written copy he sent to the offices of Apologetics Press.

350

That "Loaded” Questionnaire

ity of this view. Second, one should consider the implications in¬
volved in admitting that the "general impression" of Genesis 1 ar¬
gues for twenty-four hour days, while at the same time hinting that
principles of grammar and exegesis may suggest otherwise. Was
the inspired writer incapable of making the issue clear? The ques¬
tions continue.

Are there any principles of Hebrew grammar or exegesis
governing the interpretation of the Hebrew text which de¬
mand that yom [day] of Genesis one be understood as a
twenty-four hourdayto the exclusion of all other Interpre¬
tations?

No conservative scholar contends that there is a grammatical
rule that dictates a specific length of time inherent in yom. Why ad¬
dress arguments that have not even been made, unless one wants
to prejudice the issue. D r. M cC ord exploded the question when he
responded:

Nothing in the word yom specifies its length. H owever, an
exegesis (including grammar, syntax, and context) of yom
in its eleven occurrences in Genesis one shows the word has
two meanings:

(1) about a 12-hour period in 1:5, where it is the opposite
of darkness: 1:14,16,18, where it is the opposite of night;

(2) a 24-hour period in 1:5, where its length is defined as a
combination of evening and morning; 1:14, where it is in the
context of signs, seasons, days, and years; 1:8,13,19,23,31,
where again, repeated five times, its length is defined as a com¬
bination of morning and evening. An exegetical principle man¬
dates that normal, literal meanings must be understood unless
the context indicates an abnormal significance. N othing in
Genesis one points to an abnormal meaning. To this the pro¬
fessors agree when they say that "the general impression
gained by reading the text" is "that the days of G enesis one
were twenty-four-hour days."

Y es, we are well aware of the fact that the term "day" occasionally
is used in the B ibie in a figurative sense. B ut that is not the issue.

351

That "Loaded” Questionnaire

The issue is: What does the biblical evidence indicate concern¬
ing the use of the term "day" in the creation week? The term "bap¬
tism" sometimes is used figuratively. In M ark 10:38 the Lord em¬
ployed that word for H is impending suffering. Does the fact that
"baptism” may be used symbolically for suffering argue that such
is a possibility in Acts 2:38? What about this question: Is there any
rule of G reek grammar which would mandate that the baptism of
Acts 2:38 is to be in "water"? No. But would the gentlemen from
Searcy allow other options? If not, why not?

Is there a principle of Hebrew grammar or exegesis govern¬
ing the Interpretation of the Hebrew text which demands
that yom be Interpreted as a twenty-four hour day If It Is
preceded by the definite article?

I am fairly familiar with the literature on the subject, yet I can¬
not recall ever reading an argument for twenty-four hour creation
days based upon article usage.

Is there a principle of H ebrew grammar or exegesis govern¬
ing the Interpretation of the Hebrew text which demands
that yom be Interpreted as a twenty-four hour day If It Is
accompanied by a cardinal number?

The point that creationists have made on this matter is not one
of grammar; it is one of consistent usage, and that does relate to
exegesis. Dr, McCord correctly replied: "The length ofyom is not
determined by the accompaniment of a number, either cardinal or
ordinal. However, in over 100 citations (as, cardinals, Gen. 1:5; 7:
4; ordinals, Gen. 7:11;8:4), no exception has been found." Let the
professors try this question: "Can you cite at least one example from
the Pentateuch where yom, accompanied by a numeral, clearly in¬
dicates an indefinite period of time?" Why weren't questions of
this nature included in the survey? I think the answer is obvious.

Assuming the creation days of Genesis one were twenty-
four hour days, is there a principle of Hebrew grammar or

3S2

That "Loaded” Questionnaire

a rule of exegesis that demands the conclusion that each
of the six creation days were [sic] consecutive, that is, no
time could have elapsed to separate day one from day two,
day two from day three, etc.?

This question solicits support for the notion advanced by Don¬
ald England in A Christian View of Origins: "The days of Gene¬
sis 1 could easily have been twenty-four hour days and the earth still
date to antiquity, provided that indefinite periods of time separated
the six creation days" (1972, p. 110). [The reader might ask where
the professor got the idea that the Earth can "date to great antiq¬
uity."] Likely, Dr. McCord did not receive high marks when he re¬
sponded: "The H ebrew text, if a time lapse between days occurred,
could have spoken to that effect, but it does not. Any attempt to
inject time lapses between days is not from exegesis but eisegesis.”

A point that advocates of this "time-lapse-between-days” theory
might ponder is found in Numbers?. After the Tabernacle was set
up, the head princes of the twelve tribes brought offerings for the al¬
tar's dedication. Oblations were offered on "the first day" (12), "the
second day" (18), "the third day" (24), and so on through "the twelfth
day (78).” Assuming that these "days” were twenty-four hour days,
is there any rule of H ebrew grammar demanding the conclusion that
each of these twelve days was consecutive—that is, no time could
have elapsed to separate day one from day two, etc.? Of course there
is no "rule” of grammar that would preclude such, but only a bizarre
notion foreign to the context would ever suggest it!

Is there a principle of Hebrew grammar or a rule of exegesis
which would preclude the possibility of an Indefinite time
lapse between verses one and two or between verses two
and three of Genesis chapter one?

This question opens the door to the possibility of the Gap Theory
-a concept that came into vogue about a century ago as a means of
harmonizing the B ibie with evolutionary time scales. 1 will not use

353

That "Loaded” Questionnaire

space at this point in refuting this totally baseless theory, Profes-
sorW.W. Fields, in his book, Unformed and Unfilled (1976), has
completely demolished the Gap Theory, Oswald Allis likewise ren¬
dered a death-blow to this concept in his volume, God Spake by
Moses (1951, see his Appendix), In this connection, Allis made a
very important observation: "To allow science to become the inter¬
preter of the Bible and to force upon it meanings which it clearly does
not and cannot have is to undermine its supreme authority as the
Word ofGod" (p, 158), In short, there is neither grammatical norex-
egetical substance to the Gap Theory,

Many tend to conclude, from recorded Biblical genealogies,
that the earth and life on earth is [sic] relatively recent; that
is, less than 10,000 years. In your judgment, was it ever the
intent of Hebrew genealogies to enable one today employ¬
ing scholarly exegesis of the text to calculate the age of the
earth or the age of life on the earth?

The purpose of this question, of course, is to suggest that the
genealogical and chronological data in the B ibie are without value
in determining the relative ages of the Earth and mankind, To this
I would like to respond in several ways.

First, there is the matter of Scripture "intent," It is claimed that
the B ibIe is silent on the topic of Earth and human ages (see E ngland,
1983, p, 156), and thus it was not the "intent” of the divine writ¬
ers to discuss the ages of Earth and man. Dr, McCord, with pene¬
trating logic, replied: "It was not the intent of Paul in Romans 6:3-
4 to negate sprinkling (a practice unheard of until a,d, 253), but
since such a malpractice has developed, it is valid to use Romans
6:3-4 to set forth the proper action of baptism," H e also observed
that genealogical sources in the B ibie also limit humanity's life span
upon, the Earth, and so the Scriptures are not si lent on this issue!

Consider this parallel example. In Genesis 30:32ff,, we read of
J acob's bargain with Laban concerning the "ring-streaked and spot¬
ted" sheep, I don't suppose anyone would claim that it was the "in-

354

That "Loaded” Questionnaire

tent" of Moses to discuss genetics, yet both Sears and England con¬
tend that this passage has "prescientific" genetic implications (see:
Sears, 1969, p. 21; England, 1983, p. 145). Why can there not be
similar biblical implications that deal with Earth/ man ages?

Second, what are the actual genealogical and chronological in¬
dicators ofthe Bible? Consider the following facts. Luke'sGospel
(3:23-28) lists the record of C hrist's genealogy all the way back to
Adam (the first man—1 Corinthians 15:45). There are seventy-five
generations from J esus back to the commencement of humanity.
Fifty-fiveofthese—from Christ to Abraham—consume but a mere
2,000 years (see Douglas, 1974, p. 213). Flow many years of hu¬
man history do you suppose can be squeezed into those remaining
twenty generations (even if one allows for the longevity of the pa¬
triarchs and some minor gaps in the genealogical lists)? 0 ne thing
is certain—the three to four million years currently postulated
by evolutionary anthropologists (and those sympathetic with them)
will not fit! The Bible clearly implies a relative age limitation for
humanity; there are reasonable "time" indications that can be drawn
from the genealogies (seej ackson, 1976, 11:42-43).

Additionally, if Scripture is silent about the relative ages of the
Earth and man, and one is free, therefore, to accept the conclusions
of "science," as England alleges, then numerous Bible passages are
thrown into a state of absolute confusion. Evolutionary "science"
contends that the Earth is some 4.6 billion years old, while man is
but a stripling of approximately 3.6 million years old (a recent evo¬
lutionary estimate). This would suggest that man is only about
V i 25 o‘^ of the age of the Earth. If we let the entire sum of Earth his¬
tory, from its beginning to the present, be illustrated by a twenty-
four hour day, man had his origin about one minute and nine
seconds ago! N o wonder evolutionists are fond of referring to man
as a "J ohnny-come-lately!"

But what does this timescale do to such Bible passages as the
following: (a) Adam and Eve were made male and female "in the be¬
ginning," which, asj ack P. Lewis has correctly shown, "should be

355

That "Loaded” Questionnaire

understood in the sense of 'from the beginning of creation' (cf. Ro¬
mans 1:20; 2 Peter3:4)" [1978, p. 416]. That, of course, is exactly
what Mark's Gospel says (Mark 10:6). (b) Paul argued that man's
unbelief is inexcusable since God's existence has been humanly per¬
ceived in H is handiwork "since the creation of the world" (Romans
1:20). (c) Christ placed the first family back near the "foundation
of the world” (Luke 11:45-52).

In conclusion, we must again register a strong protest at what
this loaded questionnaire seeks to accomplish, as well as the impli¬
cations it contains. It does not reflect benevolently upon its authors'
scholastic objectivity or their regard for the plain testimony of the H oly
Scriptures. Rather, it is a graphic commentary on what can happen
when men attempt to strain the Word of God through ever-chang¬
ing "science." As the inspired j ames might say, "My brethren, these
things ought not so to be" (3:10).

356

Appendix

' >

The Bible, Science, and the
Ages of the Patriarchs

INTRODUCTION*

s one reads through the Bible, on occasion he is confronted
with statements, situations, or events that, at first glance,
seem to be either impossible or improbable—when viewed from a
distinctly modern vantage point, 0 ne good example of such an oc¬
currence might be the statements of Scripture regarding the ages
of several of the 0 Id Testament patriarchs. G enesis 5 records that
prior to the F lood, people typically lived for hundreds of years, with
the average age of the antediluvian patriarchs (excluding Enoch,
who was taken to his reward without dying) being 912 years. As
Leupold observed, "At once we are struck by the longevity of these
patriarchs; all except three lived in excess of nine hundred years.
It is useless to attempt to evade this fact" (1942, 1:233).

* This material by the author appeared originaiiy in Reason & Revelation (May 1992,
12:17-20), the monthiy journal on Christian evidences published by Apologetics Press.
It is reprinted here in a revised, updated format.

357

The Bible, Science, and the
Ages of the Patriarchs

Leupold's observation that it is "useless to attempt to evade"
the clear statements of Scripture regarding the long life spans of
the patriarchs is correct, of course, in the sense that no one can de¬
ny that the B ibie attributes long ages to many of the ancient patri¬
archs. The Bible specifically states that Adam, for example, lived
930 years (Genesis 5:5), Methuselah lived 969 years (Genesis 5:
27), etc. However, as Leopold himself discussed in his two-vol¬
ume Exposition of Genesis, some have suggested that while the
Bible says these old worthies lived to be vast ages, that is not what
it means. In other words, while the biblical statements themselves
on these matters are clear, their meaning is not.

This is the case, we are told, because it is a matter of record that
men today (obviously) do not live to be centuries old. Thus, some
have suggested that the biblical record is unacceptable and there¬
fore needs to be "fixed" or "explained" to bring it more into line with
modern scientific facts on these matters, and to make its message
palatable to people of our day and age. What recourse is available,
then, to the person who discovers that there is a disagreement be¬
tween plain, historical statements of Scripture and modern scien¬
tific pronouncements?

F irst, one might simply acknowledge that the B ibIe is inspired of
God (2 Timothy 3:16-17), and as such is accurate in its renderings.
If such a person has studied the matter(s) at hand, and is assured
that his understanding of Scripture is accurate, he will revere the
Word of God asjustthat—the Word of God—and will accept its teach¬
ings as trustworthy, in spite of modern-day claims to the contrary.
Second, of course, a person might merely dismiss the biblical rec¬
ord as little more than ancient folklore—worthy of about as much
admiration and reverence as, say, Aesop's fables. Such an attitude
rejects biblical claims of inspiration, and instead does obeisance to
current scientific or philosophical pratings. Third, one might—from
all outward appearances-claim to accept the B ibie as speaking ac¬
curately and truthfully on whatever matters it addresses, all the while
in reality compromising its teachings on a variety of subjects. Thus,

358

The Bible, Science, and the
Ages of the Patriarchs

while such a person pretends to respect the Bible as God's Word,
he instead is sowing seeds of compromise. Generally, this is the per¬
son who waits to see what "science" has to say before making any
determination on the matter. Then, if science is at odds with the B i-
ble, the Scriptures must be "corrected" to fit the scientific data or in¬
terpretations. We never are told that science must correct its view,
only the reverse—viz., the biblical record must be altered to fit cur¬
rently prevailing scientific data.

DOES THE BIBLICAL RECORD OF THE
PATRIARCHS' AGES NEED TO BE "FIXED"?

It is my intent here to examine and discuss the spirit of compro¬
mise exhibited by those in the third group mentioned above. There
are a number of notable examples of such compromise, any one of
which is illustrative of the attitudes portrayed. Two such examples
will suffice.

In 1990, Ronald F. Y oungblood edited a book titled. The Gen¬
esis Debate, in which various areas of Scripture were discussed by
disputants on both sides of an issue. Chapter eight of that volume
discusses the question, "Did people live to be hundreds of years old
before the Flood?" In that chapter, Duane L. Christensen first ad¬
vocated the view that the biblical record simply cannot be accepted
as it is written. H e then suggested a number of methods that could
be employed to "fix" the text so as to resolve what he considered
a serious discrepancy between biblical statements and current sci¬
entific knowledge (Christensen, 1990, pp. 166-183). Christensen's
assessment was that these numbers are, to use his words, "exces¬
sively large," scientifically unverifiable, and therefore, quite simply,
unacceptable.

In thej une 1978 Does God Exist? journal that he edits, j ohn
Clayton addressed the patriarchs' ages in an article on "The Ques¬
tion of Methuselah." H e suggested:

359

The Bible, Science, and the
Ages of the Patriarchs

0 ne of the most frequently asked questions that we receive
in our lecture series is "H ow did men live so long during ear¬
ly Biblical times?" The B ibie indicates ages of 969, 950, etc.,
years for early men. From a scientific standpoint we can¬
not verify this figure. By studying the bones of the oldest
men we get ages often to thirty-five years usually, and only
rarely an age as high as fifty (1978a, 5[6]:11, emp. added).

The point made by both Christensen and Clayton is that from a
scientific standpoint, the patriarchs' ages as given in the Bible
cannot be verified. In the September 1978 issue of his journal,
Clayton commented:

0 ne final difficulty that this relates to is the attempts made by
some to nail down specific historic dates to Biblical events
of great antiquity. The ages of men in the past cannot
be answered with great accuracy (1978b, 5[9]:9, emp.
added).

Why can the ages of men in the past not "be answered with ac¬
curacy"? Is it because the Bible is unclear on its statements regard¬
ing these men's ages? No, the biblical statements are both clear and
unambiguous. The simple fact of the matter is that neither of these
two writers is willing to accept the biblical testimony because alleg¬
edly there is no scientific evidence. In an April 20,1987 letter to
a gentleman in Wyoming who had written to ask him about this
very point, Mr. Clayton wrote:

It is a fact that there is no scientific evidence that people
lived to be hundreds of years old. It may just be that we have¬
n't found the right bones, but most bones of ancient men turn
out to be twenty or thirty years of age and none have [sic]
been found, to my knowledge, older than eighty years old.

For this reason, I have tried to point out that there are many
possible ways in which the extreme age of Methuse¬
lah might be explained... (p. 2, emp. added).

The absence of scientific evidence substantiating the Bible's claims
for the ages of the patriarchs is why C layton cannot bring himself
to accept those ages. Think for just a moment how radical this po¬
sition really is. What "scientific evidence” do we possess that "proves”

360

The Bible, Science, and the
Ages of the Patriarchs

the virgin birth of J esus? Since science cannot prove that such an
event ever occurred, should an alternate explanation be sought?
This line of reasoning could be expanded almost endlessly. Since
science cannot "prove" Christ's bodily resurrection, the parting of
the Red Sea, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and hundreds
of other such occurrences, then must these events—which remain
both scientifically unverified and unverifiable—simply be dismissed
in the same way these two authors suggest that the patriarchs' ages
be dismissed?

F urthermore, there is another aspect to this question that needs
to be explored. Aging is a metabolic process. Various species appear
to be "programmed” for death within a given age range. Fleas, for
example, live for about five years. Dogs live for an average of around
fifteen years. FI umans, on the other hand, can live upwards of sev¬
enty, eighty, ninety, or even a hundred years. Fleas never reach such
an age; their genetic package will not allow it. In an article titled
"Decreased Lifespans: FI ave We Been Looking in the Right Place?"
that he authored for the Creation Ex NihiloTechnical J ournal,
Carl Wieland commented on this matter as follows:

Barring accidental death, one-celled organisms are poten¬
tially "Immortal." A bacterial cell reproduces by dividing In¬
to two where there was one, those two then become four,
and so on. Why then do multicelled organisms die? Individ¬
ual human cells In tissue culture divide some fifty times and
then stop—some sort of pre-programmed genetic limit
is reached. H uman tumor cells, on the other hand, can be
propagated Indefinitely by division—the dna mechanisms for
pre-programmed cessation of division appears to be lacking
or damaged In such cancer cells.

In multicellular organisms, once damaged and worn cells can
no longer replace themselves, death Is only a matter of time
as the function of whole organ systems deteriorates. So even
without accidents or disease there Is a programmed "upper
limit" on our age, which appears to be 120 years or so....

I suggest that our ancestors simply possessed genes for great¬
er longevity which caused this "genetic limit" to human ages
to be set at a higher level In the past.

361

The Bible, Science, and the
Ages of the Patriarchs

Suggestive evidence in support of this is the fact that in some
other organisms (for example, fruit flies), it has been shown
that changes in average life spans can be bred into or out of
populations....

If this suggestion has merit as the major (if not the sole) cause
of great pre-Flood ages, then the obvious question is how
some of these longevity genes were lost. The human popu¬
lation went through a severe genetic bottleneck at the time of
the Flood—only eight individuals. The phenomenon of "ge¬
netic drift" is well known to be able to accountfor "random,"
selectively neutral changes in gene frequencies which may
be quite rapid. Also, loss of genes is far more likely in a small
population....

It is also likely (if not more so) that genes coding for lesser lon¬
gevity arose by mutational degeneration, with their frequency
of possession rising as time passed. At the moment, too little
is known of the exact mechanics of the way in which cells are
programmed to die in order to offer more specific suggestions
(1994, 8[2]:139-140, emp. added, parenthetical comments
in orig.).

What if, in the past, human metabolism was much slower? What
would be the end result? Gerald Schroeder, in his book. The Science
of God, addressed such questions.

There are terrible mutations that upset the delicate aging pro¬
cess. P rogeria speeds up the aging process almost tenfold,
causing a teenager to die with the body of an old person. With¬
in the realm of possibilities is the reverse process, slowing ag¬
ing tenfold. It would be surprising but not inconceivable that
manipulation of a flea's genome might allow it to live ten times
longer than normal, thus reaching the age of fifty years. After
all, several animals species live even longer than fifty years.

The fact that no animals currently reach the long ages asso¬
ciated with pre-N oah biblical persons does not preclude the
possibility that this potential exists within our genome.

If human metabolism was slower and life spans were
longer during the pre-Noah period, fossils would not
indicate this. The slower metabolisms would result in
fossils that appear to have formed from younger in¬
dividuals (1997, pp. 202-203, emp. added).

362

The Bible, Science, and the
Ages of the Patriarchs

In a fascinating article published in Science Digest some years
back ("H ow Y our Bones Tell Y our Age"), Frederic W. Nordsiek ob¬
served:

Bone is hard and cannot grow from the inside out as can
soft tissues like skin or muscle. Therefore, for example, each
ofthe long bones ofthe arms and legs at first consists of two
bones, with a growing section in between them. After growth
is finished, these pairs of bones fuse together.... H uman
bones continue to fuse together right up to advanced
old age (1960, 47[5]:17-18, emp. added).

Consider all of these scientific facts collectively, and you will see
how they demolish arguments like those from C hristensen and C lay-
ton which suggest that "there is no scientific evidence that people
lived to be hundreds of years old." 0 bserve what happens when
the scientific facts of the matter are interpreted properly.

We know—scientifically—that: (1) aging "is a metabolic process";
(2) the process is indeed controlled by a "pre-programmed genetic
limit"; and (3) "human bones continue to fuse together right up to
advanced old age." If people at that distant point in human history
possessed slower metabolism rates (an extremely reasonable sug¬
gestion, considering the condition ofthe world in which they were
living atthe time—see Dillow, 1981), and if the human genome con¬
tained genes for greater longevity, then the patriarchs could have
lived to vast old ages, and the slower metabolisms would result in fos¬
sils that appeared to have formed from much younger individuals.
In short, scientists actually could be in possession of-could be star¬
ing at in their laboratories—bones from people who had lived to ripe
old ages, and they never would know it! Thus, the allegation that
"most bones of ancient men turn out to be twenty or thirty years of
age and none has been found older than eighty years old" (to use
C layton's exact words) means absolutely nothing in light of the ac¬
tual scientific facts concerning human aging.

And surely the question must be asked: Why do the great ages
of the patriarchs need to be "explained" in the first place? Why not

363

The Bible, Science, and the
Ages of the Patriarchs

simply accept the biblical record as it is written? In his J une 1978
article on Methuselah, J ohn Clayton provided the answer to that
question as he discussed several possible ways to "explain" the pa¬
triarchs' ages. H e wrote:

The first possibility is that God miraculously changed man's
life expectancy. There is no discussion of such a miracle in
the Bible, but many miracles occurred during the creation
which are not recorded in Genesis I. This may well be the
answer, but since no skeptic would accept it we'll con¬
sider some other possibilities (1978a, 5[9]:11, emp. added).

This is incredible. First we are told that because there is "no sci¬
entific evidence," the great ages of the patriarchs therefore must
be "explained." Second, we are told that since "no skeptic would
accept" a particular view on these matters, "other possibilities" need
to be explored. What a sad commentary on how M r. C layton, and
others like him, view God's inspired Word. It brings to mind the
comment of biblical scholar Edward J. Y oung in his book. Studies
in Genesis One:

What strikes one immediately upon reading such a state¬
ment is the low estimate ofthe Bible which it entails. When¬
ever "science" and the Bible are in conflict, it is always the
B ibie that, in one manner or another, must give way. We are
not told that "science" should correct its answers in the light
of Scripture. Always it is the other way around (1964, p. 54).

The question, then, no longer becomes, "Does the Word of God af¬
firm it?” but instead "Can science confirm it?” As Wayne J ackson
observed:

Whenever such people read the Scriptures, they do so with
an eye cast back over their shoulder to see if science agrees:
and whenever science asserts that which is different from
what the Bible says, in desperation they are ready to append,
delete, stretch, or constrict the sacred narrative to make it con¬
form to the latest notions ofthe scientific community (1978a,
14:14).

364

The Bible, Science, and the
Ages of the Patriarchs

SUGGESTED METHODS FOR "FIXING”

THE AGES OF THE PATRIARCHS

Exactly how do Bible critics suggest that the patriarchs' great
ages be "explained"? Several methods have been offered, among
which are the following.

Ages Determined by Counting Years as Months

Some have suggested that men's ages were not determined in
ancient times as they are today. Forexample,J ohn Clayton wrote:

The guess that appeals to this writer is that the methods of
measuring age are not the same today as they were when
men lived so long.... We also know that many cultures use
the moon as a measure of age (such as many American In¬
dian tribes). If Methuselah were measured on such a system
his age would be 80 years, plus the time till he became a fa¬
ther. This doesn't change anything as he would still be phe¬
nomenally old—especially for the day in which he lived, but it
would give a modern comprehension of how such an age was
calculated (1978a, 5[6]:12, parenthetical item in orig.).

Old Testament scholar] ohnj. Davis addressed this suggestion in
two of his books. Inthe first. Biblical Numerology, heobserved:

The most common method of escaping the problem con¬
nected with these large numbers is to make "year" mean a
shorter period such as a month. This view, however, finds
no support at all in the Biblical text for the term "year" is never
used in this manner in the 0 Id Testament. In addition to this
textual weakness, there is a serious chronological problem
that is raised by such a view. In Genesis5:6 weare told that
Seth begat Enos when he was 105 years old. If "years" in this
text really means "months" then this verse would propose
that Seth had a son when he was only about nine years old!
(1968, p. 58; see also Borland, 1990, p. 171).

In his second work. Paradise to Prison, Dr. Davis suggested:
"There seems to be no reason to regard the names and ages of the
individuals in this chapter as other than fully historical." Why so?
The reason is simple. It would be difficult for someone to believe a

365

The Bible, Science, and the
Ages of the Patriarchs

person (e.g., Seth) could beget a child when he was only nine years
old, but, as Davis pointed out, "Enos, Cainan, M ahalaleel, and Enoch
would have been fathers at even younger ages” (1975, p.
106, emp, added). Frederick Filby discussed this solution in his book.
The Flood Reconsidered:

This we reject completely, as not only can it be shown to be
absolutely wrong, but it makes more difficulties than it solves.

Enoch, we are told, had a son, M ethuselah, when he was sixty-
five. If we divide by twelve he had a son when he was 5.4
years old! (1970, p. 21).

j ohn Clayton has complained that skeptics never would believe
that men lived to the vast ages ascribed to them in the B ibie. 0 ne
cannot help but wonder if these same skeptics would find it any eas¬
ier to believe that Enoch—to use Dr. Filby'sexample—produced a
child when he himself was barely over five years old!

The BibIe itself makes a clear distinction between the length of
years and months, thereby eliminating the critics' suggestion that
perhaps men's ages were counted via "moons” (i.e., months), not
years. In Genesis 8:13 it is recorded: "And it came to pass in the
six hundred and first year, in the first month...." Moses apparently
understood the difference between a month and year. Why do the
Bible's critics have so much difficulty in distinguishing between the
two?

The Bible similarly presents compelling evidence to eliminate
the idea that men's ages should be divided by 12 in order to arrive
at an accurate figure for the number of years they actually lived. Ab¬
raham was 86 when Ishmael was born (Genesis 16:16). Divided
by 12, this means that the patriarch was just over 7 years of age at
the birth of his first child, and Sarah was just under 6 when she
first gave birth! Further, Abraham must have died at the "good old
age" of a shade over 14 (Genesis 25:7-8)! As it turns out, the crit¬
ics' attempts to "fix" the Bible create a worse problem than they
sought to solve.

366

The Bible, Science, and the
Ages of the Patriarchs

Ages Counted from Birth of First Offspring

Another suggestion offered in response to the patriarchs' vast
ages is that these ages appear larger than normal because "some
primitive people measure their age not from the time of their birth,
but from the time they produce offspring, or are accepted as an
adult in the community in which they live” (Clayton, 1978a, 5[6]:12).
In other words, the figures presented in the B ibie are too large be¬
cause they have not yet been "adjusted" (i.e., shortenedjto allow
for the true age—calculated from the time of the birth of the first
offspring, or from the time a person was recognized as an adult.

Two things may be said regarding this idea. First, there is not a
scrap of evidence that the ages of the patriarchs were counted only
from the time of the birth of their firstborn. It is one thing to spec¬
ulate on such, but another thing entirely to prove it. Where is the
critics' evidence that the patriarchs' ages were treated in such a man¬
ner? Second, the Bible deals a death-blow to this suggestion when
it specifically mentions men's ages before they produced off¬
spring, eliminating the idea that their ages were not calculated pri¬
or to that event. Genesis 12:4 says: "And Abram was seventy-five
years old when he departed out of H aran.” 0 nee again, the critics'
attempts to "fix" the inspired text have made their last condition
worse than their first.

Ages Represent not Individuals, but Dynasties

In the late 1800s, as opposition to the Bible grew and skepticism
in general increased, theologians sought ways to make the Bible
conform to the claims of Darwinian evolution and uniformitarian
geology. While liberal theologians were working diligently to i n-
sert vast ages of geological time into the biblical text, somewhat
ironically, they simultaneously were working to remove the vast
ages of the patriarchs from that same text.

0 ne novel way to do that was to offer the idea that the names in
the genealogical lists (specifically those mentioned in Genesis 5 and

367

The Bible, Science, and the
Ages of the Patriarchs

11) were used to refer to entire dynasties, clans, or tribes, and only
rarely to actual individuals. B orland has explained what this would
accomplish:

This would mean that when the Adam clan had exercised
dominion for 130 years, a person was born In the Adam clan
who eventually either ruled or was the progenitor of the Seth
clan. The Adam clan continued to be powerful for an addi¬
tional 800 years, and then perhaps the Seth clan took over or
perhaps there was a gap before the Seth clan exerted Its au¬
thority for 912 years (1990, p. 174, emp. added).

T here are a number of serious problems with this view. F irst, ad¬
vocates of the "dynasty” idea cannot remain consistent, because
even they are forced to admit that certain names in the lists cannot
representonly aclan, but instead must represent individuals. Noah
and his sons must have been real individuals, because they were on
board the ark. Abraham must have been an individual, not just a
dynasty, becausehe was the father of the Hebrew nation. If these
are recognized as individuals, why should not the others be consid¬
ered as such?

Second, as Leopold commented: "The attempt to let the per¬
sonal names represent tribes shatters on the clear statement of how
old each father was when he begot a son. A complete generation is
notthus brought forth within a tribe” (1942,1:233). Borland com¬
mented: "The notation of the age at which a father begat a partic¬
ular individual (a son) eliminates the tribe concept..." (pp. 174-175).
0 ne does not speak of a "dynasty" producing a son, and then give
an age for such an occurrence.

Third, in order for this strained interpretation to be acceptable,
one has to read the biblical record with a large dose of imagination
and a small dose of common sense. For example, when the text says
that Eve bore Cain and Abel, everyone recognizes that it is speaking
of individuals because one of them (Cain) slew the other (Abel). Y et,
when Eve bore Seth, suddenly a distant dynasty is under discussion.
F urthermore, how would an advocate of this strange theory deal with

368

The Bible, Science, and the
Ages of the Patriarchs

the fact that in many instances in the Old T estament, specific broth¬
ers and sisters are mentioned? Dynasties do not have brothers and
sisters. Borland addressed this aspect in great detail, and gave nu¬
merous biblical examples establishing that individuals, not dynas¬
ties, are under discussion (pp. 175-176).The idea that the patriarchs'
ages are so large because their names represent tribes or dynasties
is completely without merit, and should be rejected.

It is not uncommon for those who refuse to accept the patri¬
archs' ages at face value to suggest that the numbers must have some
great "theological meaning” attached to them. Time and again I
have heard or seen just such a statement. But, when pressed on ex¬
actly what that theological meaning might be, supporters of such
an idea are at a total loss to offer any explanation. C hristensen was
forced to admit:

It is probably not possible to recover the key to the theologi¬
cal meaning of the numbers and ages in Genesis 5 and 11,
at least in detail. Nonetheless it seems likely that the num¬
bers are not to be taken as simply historical report (1990,

p. 180).

In other words, while he cannot explain what the numbers do mean,
he does know what they do not mean. They are not to be taken
as literal or historical.

B ut why not? That is exactly how the Bibie writers accepted them.
Examine this remarkable statement from Moses' pen. InGenesis
47:9, J acob, speaking to Pharaoh, said: "The days of the years of my
pilgrimage are a hundred and thirty years: few and evil have been
the days of my life, and they have not attained unto the days
of the years of the I ife of my fathers in the days of their pilgrim¬
age." Notice the point that] acob was making. He was 130 years old,
yet he stated that even at that great age, his days had not reached
"the days of the years of the life of my fathers." If he was 130 years
old, and yet he had not reached the age of some of the patriarchs
who preceded him, just how old would "hisfathers" have been?

369

The Bible, Science, and the
Ages of the Patriarchs

Isn't it remarkable how well the biblical record fits together? And
isn't it wonderful that it can be trusted and accepted, without the
kind of "sleight of hand" tricks on which its critics have to rely in
order to make their false theories attain some degree of respect¬
ability?

370

References

Ackerman, Paul (1986), It's a Young World After All (Grand Rapids,
Ml: Baker).

Adler, J erry (1980), "Is Man a Subtle Accident?," Newsweek, Novem¬
ber 3.

Aling, C. (1981), Egypt and Bible H Istory (Grand Rapids, Ml: Baker).

Allis, Oswald!. (1951), God Spake By Moses (Grand Rapids, Ml: Bak¬
er).

Andrews, E.H. (1986), Christ and the Cosmos (Welwyn, England:
Evangelical Press).

Archer, Gleason (1964), A Survey of Old Testament Introduction
(Chicago, IL: Moody).

Archer, Gleason L. (1970), Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, IL:
Moody).

Archer, Gleason L. (1979), "The Chronology of the Old Testament,"
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, Ml: Eerdmans).

Archer, Gleason (1982), Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rap-
Ids, Ml: Zondervan).

Archer, Gleason L. (1994), A Survey of Old Testament Introduction
(Chicago, IL: Moody).

Armstrong, Karen (1996), In the Beginning: A New Interpretation of
Genesis (New York: Ballantine).

Arndt, William and F.W. Gingrich (1957), A Greek-Engllsh Lexicon of
the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chi¬
cago, IL: University of Chicago Press).

371

References

Asimov, Isaac and DuaneT. Gish (1981), "The Genesis War," Science
Digest, 89[9]:82-87, October. [Asimov affirmed evolution and denied
creation: Gish affirmed creation and denied evolution.]

Ator, j oeT. (1988), "Astronomy," Evolution and Faith, ed.j .D. Thomas
(Abilene, TX: ACU Press).

Baikie, j ames (1929), A H istory of Egypt (London: A&C Black).

Bales,] amesD. (no date), Forty-Two Years on the Firing Line (Shreve¬
port, LA: Lambert).

Bales,] ames D. (1971), "TheTheory of Evolution: A Philosophic Prob¬
lem," The Spiritual Sword, 2[3]:l-4, April.

Bales, ] ames D. (1974), "Theistic Evolution and Genesis," Gospel Advo¬
cate, 116[4]:52-54, ] anuary 24.

Bales, J .D. and R.T. Clark (1966), Why Scientists Accept Evolution
(Grand Rapids, Ml: Baker).

Barlow, Nora, ed. (1959), The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-
1882 with Original Omissions Restored (New York: Harcourt, Brace,
and World).

Barnhouse, Donald G. (1960), "Adam and Modern Science," Eternity,
11[5]8.

Barnes, Albert (1972 reprint), Barnes’ Notes on the Old & NewTes-
taments-Acts (Grand Rapids, Ml: Baker).

Barzun,] acques (1958), Darwin, Marx, Wagner (New York: Doubleday).

Bass, Thomas (1990), "Interview with Richard Dawkins," Omni, 12[4]:
57-60,84-89, ] anuary.

Baxter, Batsell Barrett (1971), I Believe Because (Grand Rapids, Ml:
Baker).

Beck, Stanley (1963), "Science and Understanding," Dialog, pp. 316-
317.

Beechick, Ruth (1997), Genesis: Finding Our Roots (Pollock Pines, CA:
Arrow Press).

Bennetta, William]. (1987), "Scientists Decry a Slick New Packaging of
Creationism," The Science Teacher, pp. 36-43, May.

Berra, Tim M. (1990), Evolution and the Myth of Creationism (Stan¬
ford, CA: Stanford University Press).

372

References

Berry, R.J. (1975), Adam and the Ape: A Christian Approach to the
Theory of Evoiution (London: Faicon).

Betheii, Tom (1985), "Agnostic Evoiutionists: The Taxonomic Case Against
Darwin," Harper’s, 270[1617]:49-52,56-58,60-61, February.

Birdseii,J .B. (1972), H uman Evoiution (Chicago, IL: Rand McNaiiy).

Bishop, George (1998), "The Reiigious Woridview and American Be-
iiefs about H uman Origins," The Pubiic Perspective, August/Sep¬
tember, pp. 39-48.

Biackmore, Vernon and Andrews Page (1989), Evoiution—The Great
Debate (Oxford, Engiand: Lion).

Bioomfieid, S.T. (1837), The Greek New Testament with Engiish Notes
(Boston, MA: Perkins and Marvin).

Bium, Haroid (1968), Time’s Arrow and Evoiution (Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press).

Bonner, J ohn T yier (1961), "Review of The Impiications of Evoiution,"
American Scientist, 49:240, J une. [See Kerkut(1960)forthe pub-
iication data of the book Dr. Bonner was reviewing.]

Boriand, J ames A. (1990), "Did Peopie Live to be H undreds of Years
Oid Before the Fiood?" The Genesis Debate, ed. Ronaid F. Y oung-
biood (Grand Rapids, Ml: Baker). [Boriand answers in the affirmative.]

Brandfon, Fredric (1988), "Archaeoiogy and the Bibiicai Text," Bibiicai Ar-
chaeoiogy Review, 14[l]:54-59, j anuary/ February.

Brantiey, GarryK. (1993a), "Dating in Archaeoiogy: Chaiiengesto Bib¬
iicai Credibiiity," Reason & Reveiation, 13:82-85, November.

Brantiey, GarryK. (1993b), "Pagan MythoiogyandtheBibie," Reason
& Reveiation, 13:49-53, ] uiy.

Brantiey, GarryK. (1995), Digging for Answers (Montgomery, AL: Apoi-
ogetics Press).

Breasted, j ames (1912), H istory of Egypt (New York: Charies Scrib¬
ner’s Sons).

Bromiing, Brad T. (1994), "But Augustine Said...," Reason & Reveia¬
tion, 14:53, J uiy.

Brown, Francis, S.R. Driver, and Charies A. Briggs (1979), The New
Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius H ebrew and Engiish Lexicon (Pea¬
body, MA: Hendrickson).

373

References

Browne, Harold (1981 reprint), The Bible Commentary, ed. F.C. Cook
(Grand Rapids, Ml: Baker).

Bruce, F.F. (1972), Answers to Questions (Grand Rapids, Ml: Zonder-
van).

Buffaloe, Neal (1969), "God or Evolution?," Mission, pp. 17,20,21, April.

Buffaloe, Neal and N. Patrick Murray (1981), Creationism and Evolu¬
tion (Little Rock, AR: The Bookmark).

Bultmann, Rudolf (1969), Primitive Christianity (New York: World Pub¬
lishing).

Buswell, J ames 0. (1959), "A Creationist Interpretation of Prehistoric
Man," Evolution and Christian ThoughtToday, ed. Russell L. Mix-
ter (Grand Rapids, Ml: Eerdmans).

Butt, Kyle (2000), "The H istorical Christ—Fact or Fiction?," Reason &
Revelation, 20:1-6, J anuary.

Camp, Robert (1972), "Theistic Evolution," A Critical Look at Evolu¬
tion, ed. Robert Camp (Atlanta, GA: Religion, Science, and Commu¬
nication Research and Development Corporation).

Carnell, Edward J ohn (1959), The Case for Orthodox Theology (Phil¬
adelphia, PA: Westminster).

Cassel, J. Frank (1960), "Species, Concepts, and Definitions,"] ournal
of the American Scientific Affiliation, 12:2.

Cassel, J. Frank (1973), "Biology," Christ and the Modern Mind, ed.
Robert W. Smith (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press).

Christensen, Duane L. (1990), "Did People Live to beH undredsofYears
Old Before the Flood?" The Genesis Debate, ed. Ronald F. Y oung-
blood (Grand Rapids, Ml: Baker). [Christensen answers in the nega¬
tive.]

Clark, W. LeGros (1955), The Fossil Evidence for H uman Evolution
(Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).

Clarke, Adam (no date), Clarke's Commentary (New York: Abingdon-
Cokesbury).

Clayton, J ohn N. (no date-a), "Biblical Misconceptions and the Theory
of Evolution," Does God Exist? Correspondence Course, Lesson 4
(South Bend, IN: Privately published by author).

374

References

Clayton, J ohn N. (no date-b), "The H istory of Man on Planet Earth," Does
God Exist? Correspondence Course, Lesson 8 (South Bend, IN:
Privately published by author).

Clayton, J ohn N. (no date-c). Questions and Answers: Number One
(South Bend, IN: Privately published by author), [taped lecture].

Clayton, John N. (no date-d). Evolution's Proof of God (South Bend, IN:
Privately published by author), [taped lecture].

Clayton,] ohn N. (1976a), "'FlatEarth' BibleStudyTechnIques," Does
God Exist?, 3[10]:2-7, October.

Clayton, ] ohn N. (1976b), The Source (South Bend, IN: Privately pub¬
lished by author).

Clayton,John N. (1977), "The'Non-World View'of Genesis," DoesGod
Exist?, 4[6]:6-8, J une.

Clayton, J ohn N. (1978a), "The Question of Methuselah," DoesGod Ex¬
ist?, 5[6]:11-13, J une.

Clayton, J ohn N. (1978b), "The H Istory of Man's Time Problem," Does
God Exist?, 5[9]:6-10, September.

Clayton, J ohn N. (1979a), "Letter to the Editor," Rocky Mountain Chris¬
tian, 7[4]:3, March.

Clayton, John N. (1979b), "The Necessity of Creation—Biblically and
Scientifically," DoesGod Exist?, 6[5]:2-5, May.

Clayton, J ohn N. (1980a), "Is the Age of the Earth Related to a 'Literal
Interpretation' of Genesis?," Does God Exist?, 7[l]:3-8, J anuary.

Clayton, J ohn N. (1980b), A Response to "Evolutionary Creationism,"
(taped lecture).

Clayton, J ohn N. (1982), "WhereArethe Dinosaurs?," DoesGod Ex¬
ist?, 9[10]:2-6, October.

Clayton, ] ohn N. (1987), Personal letter to Mike Christensen of Lara¬
mie, Wyoming, pp. 1-2.

Clayton,] ohn N. (1989), "How Much Does Modernism Rob Us of Bib¬
lical Understanding?," DoesGod Exist?, 16[l]:4-7,J anuary/Febru¬
ary.

Clayton, J ohn N. (1990a), "The H Istory of the Earth," DoesGod Exist?
Correspondence Course, Lesson 9 (South Bend, IN: Privately pub¬
lished by author).

375

References

Clayton, J ohn N. (1990b), "How Did God Create Man?," Does God
Exist? Correspondence Course, Lesson 7 (South Bend, IN: Privately
published by author).

Clayton, J ohn N. (1990c), "One Week Creation—Of Man or of God?,"
Does God Exist?, 17[4]:5-12, J uly/August.

Clayton,) ohn N. (1990d), TheSource (South Bend, IN: Privately pub¬
lished by author).

Clayton, J ohn N. (1991), "Creation Versus Making—A Key to Genesis
1," Does God Exist?, 18[1]:6-10, J anuary/February.

Clayton,) ohn N. (1999), "GoodOuote," DoesGod Exist?, 25[6]:no page
number, September/October.

Coffman, Burton (1985), Commentary on Genesis (Abilene, TX: ACU
Press).

Coppedge,) ames (1975), Evolution: Possible or Impossible? (Grand
Rapids, Ml: Zondervan).

Cremer, H. (1962), Biblico-Theological Dictionary of New Testament
Greek (London: T. &T. Clark).

Crick, Francis (1981), Life Itself (New York: Simon & Schuster).

Criswell, W.A. (1972), Did Man) ust FIappen?(Grand Rapids, Ml: Zon¬
dervan).

Culp, G. Richard (1975), Remember Thy Creator (Grand Rapids, Ml:
Baker).

Custance, Arthur (1967), The Genealogies of the Bible, Doorway Pa¬
per #24 (Ottawa, Canada: Doorway Papers).

Custance, Arthur (1970), Without Form and Void (Brockville, Canada:
Doorway Papers).

Custance, Arthur C. (1976), The Virgin Birth and the Incarnation
[Volume V of The Doorway Papers] (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Darlington, P.D. (1980), Evolution for Naturalists (New York:) ohn
Wiley & Sons).

Darwin, Charles (1859), The Origin of Species (London:) .M. Dent &
Sons), sixth edition.

Darwin, Charles (1958 reprint). The Origin of Species (New York: New
American Library), Mentor edition.

376

References

Darwin, Charles (1870), The Descent of Man (New York: Modern Li¬
brary). This is a two-volume edition in a single binding that also in¬
cludes The Origin of Species.

Darwin, Francis, ed. (1888), The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin
(London: Appleton).

Darwin, Francis, ed. (1898), The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (Lon¬
don: Appleton).

Davidheiser, Bolton (1969), Evolution and Christian Faith (Grand Rap¬
ids, Ml: Baker).

Davidheiser, Bolton (1973), "Theistic Evolution," And God Created, ed.
Kelly L. Segraves (San Diego, CA: Creation-Science Research Cen¬
ter), 3:49-53.

Davies, Paul (1988), The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Na¬
ture’s Creative Ability to Order the Universe (New York: Simon
& Schuster).

Davis,J ohnj. (1968), Biblical Numerology (Grand Rapids, Ml: Baker).

Davis, J ohnj. (1975), Paradise to Prison—Studies in Genesis (Grand
Rapids, Ml: Baker).

Davis, John]. (1985), Evangelical Ethics (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyte¬
rian and Reformed).

Dawkins, Richard (1982), "The Necessity of Darwinism," New Scientist,
94:130-132, April 15.

Dawkins, Richard (1986), The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W.
Norton).

Dawkins, Richard (1989), "Book Review" (of Donald J ohanson & Mait¬
land Edey's Blueprint), The New York Times, section 7, April 9.

DeFloff, George (1944), Why We Believe the Bible (Murfreesboro, TN:
DeFloff Publications).

Denton, Michael (1985), Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Bur¬
nett Books).

Denton, Michael (1998), Nature's Destiny: Flow the Laws of Biology
Reveal Purpose in the Universe (New York: Simon & Schuster).

Diamond, J ared (1992), The Third Chimpanzee (New York: FI arper-
Collins).

Dillow J oseph (1981), The Waters Above (Chicago, IL: Moody).

377

References

Dobzhansky, Theodosius (1956), The Biological Basis of H uman Free¬
dom (New York: Columbia University Press).

Dobzhansky, Theodosius (1967), "Changing Man," Science, 55:409.

Dobzhansky, Theodosius (1975), "Darwin or 'Oriented' Evolution?," Evo¬
lution, 29:376.

Dods, Marcus (1948), "Genesis," The Expositor's Bible, ed. W.R. Nic-
oll (Grand Rapids, Ml: Eerdmans).

Douglas, J .D., ed. (1974), The New Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids,
Ml: Eerdmans).

Ehrlich, Paul and L.C. Birch (1967), "Evolutionary History and Popula¬
tion Biology," Nature, 214:352.

Eiseley, Loren (1961), Darwin'sCentury (Garden City, NY: Anchor Books).

Eldredge, Niles (1982), The Monkey Bus! ness (New York: Pocket Books).

Eldredge, Niles (2000), The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of
Creationism (New York: W.H. Freeman).

England, Donald (1972), A Christian View of Origins (Grand Rapids,
Ml: Baker).

England, Donald (1982), Letter to Dr. Clifton L. Ganus, President, Har¬
ding University, Searcy, Arkansas.

England, Donald (1983), A Scientist Examines Faith and Evidence (De¬
light, AR: Gospel Light).

Erickson, Millard J. (1992), Does It Matter What I Believe? (Grand Rap¬
ids, Ml: Baker).

Eve, Raymond A. and Francis B. Harrold (1991), The Creationist Move¬
ment in Modern America (Boston, MA: G.K. Hall).

Evolution (n.d.), (Ontario, Canada: International Christian Crusade).

Ex Nihilo (1984), "Update," 6[4]:46, May.

Fair, Ian (1988), "Origins and the Bible," Evolution and Faith, ed. J .D.
Thomas (Abilene, TX: ACU Press).

Felix, Charles (1988), "Geology and Paleontology," Evolution and Faith,
ed. J .D. Thomas (Abilene, TX: ACU Press).

Ferris, Timothy (1997), The Whole Shebang: A State of the Uni-
verse(s) Report (New York: Simon & Schuster).

378

References

Fields, Weston W. (1976), Unformed and Unfilled (Grand Rapids, Ml:
Baker).

Filby, Frederick A. (1970), The Flood Reconsidered (Grand Rapids,
Ml: Zondervan).

Fletcher, J oseph (1979), FI umanhood: Essays in Biomedical Ethics (Buf¬
falo, NY: Prometheus).

Fortey, Richard (1997), Life: A Natural H istory of the First Four Bil¬
lion Years of Life on Earth (New York: Knopf).

Fox, Sidney and Klaus Dose (1977), Molecular Evolution and the Ori¬
gin of Life (New York: Marcel Dekker).

Francella, Kevin (1981), "Former Atheist Says Bible and Evolutionism
AreCompatible,"TheSundayPress, Binghamton, NewYork, Mayl7.

Futuyma, Douglas). (1983), ScienceonTrial:TheCaseforEvolution
(New York: Pantheon).

Futuyma, Douglas). (1987), "World Without Design," Natural Flistory,
96[3]:34,36, March.

Gabel,) ohn B., Charles B. Wheeler, and Anthony D. Y ork (1996), The
Bible As Literature (New York: Oxford University Press).

Gardner, Martin (1988), The New Age: Notes of a FringeWatcher (Buf¬
falo, NY: Prometheus).

Geisler, Norman L. and). Kerby Anderson (1987), Origin Science (Grand
Rapids, Ml: Baker).

Geisler, Norman L. and Ronald M. Brooks (1990), When SkepticsAsk
(Wheaton, IL: Victor).

Gilman, O.M. (1971), The Evolutionary Outlook: 1875-1900 (Clio,
Ml: Marston).

Gilmore, Ralph (1987), "Theistic Evolution," Grace Abounding, ed. Win-
ford Claiborne (Flenderson, TN: Freed-Flardeman University).

Gipson, Mike(1999), "Letterto theEditor,"TheDailyOklahoman, No¬
vember 24, p. A-8.

Gish, DuaneT. and Isaac Asimov (1981), "The Genesis War," Science
Digest, 89[9]:82-87, October. [Gish affirmed creation and denied evo¬
lution; Asimov affirmed evolution and denied creation.)

Glanz,) ames (2000), "Survey Finds Support is Strong for Teaching 2
Origin Theories," The New York Times, p. A-1, March 11.

379

References

Glass, Bentley(1971), "Science: EndlessHorlzonsorGoldenAge?," Sci¬
ence, 171:23-29.

Godfrey, Laurie, ed. (1983), Scientists Confront Creationism (New
York: W.W. Norton).

Gould, Stephen). (1987), "Darwinism Defined: The Difference Between
Fact and Theory," Discover, 8[l]:64-65,68-70, J anuary.

Gould, Stephen)., ed. (1993), The Book of Life (New York: W.W. Nor¬
ton).

Gould, Stephen ) ay (1999), "Dorothy, It's Really Oz," Time, 154[8]:
59, August 23.

Grasse, Plerre-Paul (1977), The Evolution of Living Organisms (New
York: Academic Press).

Green, William H. (1890), "Primeval Chronology," Bibliotheca Sacra,
47:294-295.

Green, William H. (1979 reprint). The Unity of the Book of Genesis
(Grand Rapids, Ml: Baker).

Greenstein, George (1988), The Symbiotic Universe (New York: Wil¬
liam Morrow).

Gribbln,) ohn (1981), "The Universe of a Comet Born," Science Digest,
89[3]:14, April.

Hall, Marshall and Sandra Hall (1974), The Truth: God or Evolution?
(Grand Rapids, Ml: Baker).

Ham, Ken (1987), The Lie: Evolution (ElCa)on, CA: Master Books).

Ham, Ken (2000), Did Adam H avea Bellybutton? (Green Forest, AR:
Master Books).

Hanson, Robert W. (1986), Science and Creation (New York: Mac¬
millan).

Harris, R.L., G.L. Archer) r., and B.K. Waltke, eds. (1980), Theologi¬
cal Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago, IL: Moody).

Harrold, FrancIsB. and RaymondA. Eve (1987), Cult Archaeology and
Creationism (Iowa City, lA: University of Iowa Press).

Hartshorne, M.H. (1958), The Promise of Science and the Power of
Faith (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).

Harvey, Van A. (1966), The Historian and the Believer (New York:
Macmillan).

380

References

Hauret, Charles (1955), Beginnings: Genesis and Modern Science
(Dubuque, lA: Priority Press).

Hayward, Aian (1985), Creation and Evoiution: The Facts and the
Faiiacies (London: Triangie Books).

Hearn, Waiter (1961), J ournai of the American Scientific Affiiiation,
p. 42, J une.

H edegard, David (1964), Ecumenism and the Bibie (London: The Ban¬
ner of T ruth T rust).

Hefiey,J amesC. (1965), "Let's Be Honest About Evoiution," Eternity,
p. 21, October.

Henkei, Maicoim (1950), "Fundamentai Christianity and Evoiution," Mod¬
ern Science and the Christian Faith, ed. F. Alton Everest (Wheaton,
IL: Van Kampen Press).

Henry, Matthew (no date), Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole
Bible (McLean, VA: MacDonald).

H ick, J ohn (1985), "A Liberal Christian View," Free Inquiry, 5[4]:40.

H immelfarb, Gertrude (1959), Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution
(London: Chatto and Windus).

Hoehner, H arold W. (1969), "The Duration of the Egyptian Bondage"
Bibliotheca Sacra, 126:306-316.

Hoover, ArlieJ. (1992), "God and the Big Bang," Gospel Advocate,
134[9]:34-35, September.

Horne, Thomas H. (1970 reprint). An Introduction to the Critical Study
and Knowledgeof the H oly Scriptures (Grand Rapids, Ml: Baker).

Howard, Ted andj eremy Rifkin (1977), Who Should Play God? (New
York: Dell).

Howe, George (1964), Creation Research Society Annual (4nn Arbor,
Ml: Creation Research Society).

Howells, W.W. (1944), Mankind So Far (New York: Doubleday).

Hoyle, Fred (1981a), "The Big Bang in Astronomy," New Scientist, 92:
521-527, November 19.

Hoyle, Fred (1981b), "Hoyleon Evolution," Nature, 294:105,148, No¬
vember 12.

Hoyle, Fred (1982), "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections," An¬
nual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20:16.

381

References

Hoyle, Fred and Chandra Wickramasinghe (1981), Evolution from
Space (New York: Simon & Schuster).

Hoyle, Fred and Chandra Wickramasinghe (1991), "Where Microbes
Boldly Went," New Scientist, 91:412-415, August 13.

Hughes, Norman (1984a), "Monism, Belief, and Scientific Explanations,"
Does God Exist?, 11[5]:12-18, September/October.

Hughes, Norman (1984b), Personal letter to WayneJ ackson, Novem¬
ber 23, p. 1.

H ughes, Norman (1986), "Letter to the Editor,"] ournal of the Ameri¬
can Scientific Affiliation, 38[4]:282, December.

Hull, David (1991), "The God of the Galapagos," Nature, 352:486,
August 8. [Dr. Hull, of the philosophy department at Northwestern
University, was reviewing Philip J ohnson's 1991 book, Darwin on
Trial (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway).]

TheH umanist(1977), "A StatementAffirming Evolution asa Principle
of Science," 37:4-5, J anuary/ February.

Humanist Manifestos I & II (1973), (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus).

H umphreys, D. Russell (1994), Starlight and Time (Green Forest, AR:
Master Books).

H uxley, Aldous (1966), "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report:
Perspective on the News, 3:19, J une.

H uxley, J ulian (1946), Rationalist Annual; cf. L.M. Davies (1947), "The
Present State of Teleology," Transactions of the Victoria Institute
(London: Victoria Institute), 79:70.

H uxley, j ulian (1960a), Time, p. 45, August 1.

Huxley, j ulian (1960b), "The Emergence of Darwinism," The Evolu¬
tion of Life [Volume 1 of Evolution After Darwin], ed. Sol Tax (Chi¬
cago, IL: University of Chicago Press).

H uxley,] ulian (1960c), "The Evolutionary Vision," Issues in Evolution
[Volumes of Evolution After Darwin], ed. Sol Tax (Chicago, IL: Uni¬
versity of Chicago Press).

Huxley,] ulian (1960d)," 'At Random': A Television Preview," Issues in
Evolution, [Volumes of Evolution After Darwin], ed. SolTax (Chi¬
cago, IL: University of Chicago Press).

Irenaeus, (n.d.). Against Heresies, 2.X.4.

382

References

J ackson, Wayne (no date), Evolution and Science (Stockton, CA: Cou¬
rier Publications), a tract.

J ackson, Wayne (1974), Fortify Your Faith in an Age of Doubt (Stock-
ton, CA: Courier Publications).

J ackson, Wayne (1976), "Biblical Geneologiesand Fluman Flistory," Chris¬
tian Courier, 11:42-43, March.

J ackson, Wayne (1978a), "The Age of Methuselah," Christian Courier,
14:14-16, August.

J ackson, Wayne (1978b), "The Antiquity of FI uman FI istory," Words of
Truth, 14[18]:1, April 14.

J ackson, Wayne (1981), "The Chronology of the Old Testament in the
Light of Archaeology," Reason & Revelation, 1:37-39, October.

J ackson, Wayne (1983), "BibleContradictions—AreThey Real?," Reason
& Revelation, 3:25-28, J une.

J ackson, Wayne (1984), "A Pepperdine Professor and Evolution," Chris¬
tian Courier, 20:29-31, December.

J ackson, Wayne (1987), "Does the Genesis Account of Creation Allow
forTheistic Evolution?," Questions Men Ask about God, ed. Eddie
Whitten (Bedford, TX: Christian Supply Center), pp. 125-133.

J ackson, Wayne (1989), Creation, Evolution, and the Age of the Earth
(Stockton, CA: Courier Publications).

J ackson, Wayne (1990a), "Destructive Criticism and the Old Testament,"
Essays in Apologetics, ed. BertThompson and WayneJ ackson (Mont¬
gomery, AL: Apologetics Press), 4:1-6.

J ackson, Wayne (1990b), "The Saga of Ancient) ericho," Reason & Rev¬
elation, 10:17-19, April.

J ackson, Wayne (1990c), "When the Creation is Delivered," Christian
Courier, 26:25, November.

J ackson, Wayne (1993), "Is the'Big Bang'Theory Biblical?," Christian
Courier, 28:41-43, March.

J ackson, Wayne and Brad Bromling (no date). Alleged Discrepancies—
The Skeptics’ Impotent Axe (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press),
a monograph.

383

References

J ackson, Wayne and BertThompson (1979), Evolutionary Creationism:
A Review of the Teachings of J ohn N. Clayton (Montgomery, AL:
Apologetics Press).

J ackson, Wayne and Bert Thompson (1992), In the Shadow of Dar¬
win: A Review of the Teachings of J ohn N. Clayton (Montgom¬
ery, AL: Apologetics Press).

J acobus, Melancthon (1864), Notes on Genesis (Philadelphia, PA: Pres¬
byterian Board of Publication).

J amieson, Robert, etal. (1945), J amieson, Faucett, Brown BibleCom-
mentary (Grand Rapids, Ml: Eerdmans).

J astrow, Robert (1977), Until the Sun Dies (New York: W.W. Norton).

J auncey, J ames H. (1961), Science Returns to God (Grand Rapids, Ml:
Zondervan).

J ohanson, Donald C., Lenora J ohanson, and Blake Edgar (1994), An¬
cestors (New York: Villard).

J ohnson, Phillip E. (1991), Darwin on Trial (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-
Varsity Press).

Johnston, Floward Agnew (1902), Bible Criticism and the Average
Man (New York: Revell).

j ordan, j ames (1979/1980), "The Biblical Chronology Question," Cre¬
ation Social Sciences and H umanities Quarterly, 2[2]:9-15, Win¬
ter 1979; 2[3]:17-26, Spring 1980.

Kantzer, Kenneth (1982), "Guideposts for the Current Debate over Qri-
gins," Christianity Today, pp. 23-25, Qctober8.

Kautz, Darrel (1988), The Qrigin of Living Things (Milwaukee, Wl:
Privately published by author).

Keen, William W. (1923), I Believe in God and in Evolution (Philadel¬
phia, PA: Lippincott).

Keil, C.F. (1971 reprint). The Pentateuch (Grand Rapids, Ml: Eerdmans).

Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1974 reprint). Commentary on theQld Tes¬
tament (Grand Rapids, Ml: Eerdmans).

Keith, Arthur (1932), The FI uman Body (London: Butterworth).

Keosian, j. (1968), The Qrigin of Life (New York: Reinhold).

Kerkut, George A. (1960), The Implications of Evolution (London: Perg-
amon).

384

References

Kitchen, Kenneth A. (1966), Ancient Orient and Oid Testament (Lon¬
don: Tyndaie).

Kitchen, Kenneth A. andj .D. Dougias, eds. (1982), The New Bibie Dic¬
tionary (Wheaton, IL: Tyndaie), second edition.

Kitcher, Phiiiip (1982), A busing Science: The Case Against Creation¬
ism (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).

Kiingman, George (1929), God Is (Cincinnati, OH: F.L. Rowe).

Kiotz, J ohn (1955), Genes, Genesis, and Evoiution (St. Louis, MO: Con¬
cordia).

Koch, Leo (1957), "Vitaiistic-Mechanistic Controversy," Scientific Month-
iy, p. 250.

Krause, Hans (1978), The Mammoth—In Ice and Snow? (Stuttgart,
Germany: Im Selbstverlag).

Larison, Lorraine L. (1977), The Center of Life, excerpts as quoted in
Science Digest, 82:46, November.

Laughiin, J ohn (1992), "H ow to Date a Cooking Pot," Bibiicai Archae-
oiogy Review, 18[5]:72-74, September/October.

Leakey, Richard and Roger Lewin (1977), Origins (New York: E.P. Dut¬
ton).

Lenski, R.C.H. (1966a), The Interpretation of the Epistie to the He¬
brews and of the Epistie of J ames (Minneapoiis, MN: Augsburg).

Lenski, R.C.H. (1966b), The Interpretation of the Episties of Peter,
St. J ohn, and St. J ude (M inneapoiis, M N: Augsburg).

Leupoid, H.C. (1942 reprint). Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids,
Ml: Baker).

Lever, J an (1958), Creation and Evoiution (Grand Rapids, Ml: Grand
Rapids Internationai Pubiications).

Lewis, J ack P. (1978), "From the Beginning It Was Not So...," Your
Marriage Can Be Great, ed. Thomas B. Warren 0 onesboro, AR:
Nationai Christian Press).

Lewontin, Richard (1997), "Biiiionsand Biiiionsof Demons,"TheNew
Y ork Review, p. 31, J anuary 9.

Lightfoot, Neii R. (1988), "The Week of Creation," Evoiution and Faith,
ed. J .D. Thomas (Abiiene, TX: ACU Press).

Lindseii, H aroid (1977), Christianity Today, pp. 17-18, J une.

385

References

Lipson, H.S. (1980), "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin,
p. 138, May.

Lloyd, J ames E. (1982), Florida Entomologist, 65:1.

Lloyd-J ones, D. Martin (1953), From Fear to Faith (London: InterVar-
sity Press).

Lovtrup, Soren (1987), Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (London:
Groom and FI elm).

Lygre, David (1979), Life Manipulation (New York: Walker).

Macbeth, Norman (1971), Darwin Retried (New York: Gambit).

Macbeth, Norman (1982), "Darwinism: A Time for Funerals," Towards,
2:22, Spring.

MacKnight,J ames (1960 reprint). Apostolical Epistles (Nashville, TN:
Gospel Advocate).

Maddox,) ohn (1994), "TheGenesisCodebyNumbers," Nature, 367:
111, J anuary 13.

Major, Trevor). (1987), "Questions and Answers," Reason & Revelation,
7:5-7, February.

Major, Trevor). (1989), "Which Came First-The Chicken or the Egg?,"
Bible-Science Newsletter, 27[10]:16, October.

Major, Trevor (1990), "WasThere Death BeforeAdam?," Reasoningfrom
Revelation, 2[7]:l-2, j uly.

Major, Trevorj. (1991), "In the News—National Beliefs Polled," Reason
& Revelation, 11:48, December.

Major, Trevor). (1993), "Dating in Archaeology: Radiocarbon and Tree-
Ring Dating," Reason & Revelation, 13:74-77, October.

Major, Trevor). (1994a), "IsCreation Science?," Reason & Revelation,
14:17-23, March.

Major,Trevor). (1994b), "WhatDo EvolutionistsThinkAboutTheistic
Evolution?," Reason & Revelation, 14:55, j uly.

Major, Trevor). (1996), Genesis and the Origin of Coal and Oil (Mont¬
gomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Mammel, Lewis and Flenry M. Morris (1986), Debate on the Age of
the Earth (two audio tapes).

Marsh, Frank Lewis (1967), Life, Man, and Time (Escondido, CA: Out¬
door Pictures).

386

References

Marsh, Frank Lewis (1978), "On Creation with an Appearance of Age,"
Creation Research Society Quarteriy, 14[4]:187-188, March.

Marx, Paui (1975), Death Without Dignity (Coiiegeviiie, MN: Liturgi-
cai Press).

Mather, Kirtiey F. (1960), Science Ponders Reiigion, ed. Flariow Shap-
iey (New York: Appieton-Century-Croft).

Matteii, A.J. J r., (1982), "Three Cheers for the Creationists," Free In¬
quiry, Spring.

Mauro, Phiiip (no date). The Wonders of BibieChronoiogy (Swengei,
PA: Reiner).

McCiish, Dub, ed. (1983), Studies in Hebrews (Denton, TX: Peari Street
Church of Christ).

McCormick, Richard (1974), "To Save or Let Die—The Diiemma of Mod¬
ern Medicine," J ournai of theAmerican Medicai Association, 229:
172-176.

McCord, H ugo (1968), "Coiiege Freshmen and Evoiution," Firm Foun¬
dation, pp. 771,777, Decembers.

McDoweii, J osh (1999), The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict
(Nashviiie, TN: Thomas Neison).

Mclver, Tom (1988a), Anti-Evoiution Bibiiography 0 efferson, NC:
McFariand).

Mclver, Tom (1988b), "Formless and Void: Gap Theory Creationism,"
Creation/Evolution, 8[3]:l-24, Fall.

McKenzie,) ohn L. (1959), "Myth and the Old Testament," The Catho¬
lic Biblical Quarterly, 21:281.

McKown, Delos B. (1985), With Faith and Fury (Buffalo, NY: Prome¬
theus).

McKown, Delos B. (1993), The Myth-Maker's Magic—Behind the Il¬
lusion of "Creation Science" (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus).

Merrill, E.H., (1978), An Historical Survey of theOldTestament(Phil-
lipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed).

Miller, David L. (1987), "Anatomy of a FalseTeacher," The Restorer,
7[2]:2-3, February.

Milligan, Robert (1972 reprint). The Scheme of Redemption (Nash¬
ville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

387

References

Millikan, Robert (1925), quoted in The Nashville Banner, August 7.

Mixter, Russell L. (1961), "Man in Creation," Christian Life, October,
p. 25.

Montagu, Ashley, ed. (1984), Science and Creationism (New York:
Oxford University Press).

Moody, Paul A. (1962), Introduction to Evolution (New York: Harper
& Row).

Moody, Paul A. (1970), Introduction to Evolution (New York: Harper
& Row), second edition.

Moore, David W. (1999), "Americans Support Teaching Creationism
as Well as Evolution in Public Schools," [On-line], URL http://www.
gallup.com/poll/releases/pr990830.asp (Princeton, Nj: Gallup News
Service).

Moore,] ohn N. and Harold Slusher (1974), Biology: A Search for Order
in Complexity (Grand Rapids, Ml: Zondervan).

Morris, HenryM. (1963), TheTwilight of Evolution (Grand Rapids, Ml:
Baker).

Morris, HenryM. (1966), Studies in the Bible and Science (Grand Rap¬
ids, Ml: Baker).

Morris, Henry M. (1973), "The Day-Age Theory," And God Created,
ed. Kelly L. Segraves (San Diego, CA: Creation-Science Research
Center).

Morris, HenryM. (1974a), Scientific Creationism (San Diego, CA: Cre¬
ation-Life Publishers).

Morris, HenryM. (1974b), The Troubled Waters of Evolution (San
Diego, CA: Creation-Life Publishers).

Morris, HenryM. (1976), The Genesis Record (Grand Rapids, Ml: Baker).

Morris, HenryM. (1980), King of Creation (San Diego, CA: Creation-
Life Publishers).

Morris, Henry M. (1984), The Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Grand
Rapids, Ml: Baker).

Morris, HenryM. (1989), The Long War Against God (Grand Rapids,
Ml: Baker).

Morris, Henry M. and Gary E. Parker (1987), What Is Creation Science?
(San Diego, CA: Master Books), second edition.

388

References

Morris, J ohn D. (1992), "Do Americans Beiieve in Creation?," Acts and
Facts, p. d, February.

Morris, J ohn D. (1994), The Young Earth (Green Forest, AR: Master
Books).

Morris, Leon (1960), The Epistieto the Hebrews (Grand Rapids, Mi:
Eerdmans).

Muiier, Hermann). (1966), as quoted in Arkansas Gazette, p. 2,J une
28.

Neikin, Dorothy (1977), ScienceTextbook Controversies and thePoii-
tics of Equai Time (Cambridge, MA: MiT Press).

Neweii, Norman D. (1985), Creation and Evoiution: Myth or Reaiity?
(New York: Praeger).

Newport, Frank (1993), "God Created H umankind. Most Beiieve," Sun¬
day Okiahoman, A-22.

Nichois, G us (1972), "The Scheme of Redemption," The Bibie Versus
Liberaiism, ed.ThomasB. Warren (Henderson,TN: Freed-Hardeman
University).

Nlessen, Richard (1980), "Significant Discrepancies Between Theistic Evo¬
iution and the Bibie," UFO's, Satan, and Evoiution, ed. Sidney).
) ansma Sr. (privately published by editor).

Nordsiek, Frederic W. (1960), "How Your Bones Tell Y our Age," Sci¬
ence Digest, 47[5]:17-18, May.

Norman, Trevor and Barry Setterfield (1987), The Atomic Constants,
Light, and Time [Technical Report] (Menlo Park, CA: Stanford Re¬
search Institute International).

Numbers, Ronald L. (1992), The Creationists: The Evolution of Scien¬
tific Creationism (New York: Alfred A. Knopf).

O'Keefe,) ohn (1995), as quoted in Show Me God, ed. Fred Heeren
(Wheeling, IL: Searchlight Publications).

Oparin, A.I. (1961), Life: Its Nature, Origin and Development (Edin¬
burgh: Oliver and Boyd).

Orgel, Leslie E. (1994), "The Origin of Life on Earth," Scientific Amer¬
ican, 271:77-83, October.

Osborn, Henry Fairfield (1918), The Origin and Evolution of Life
(New York: Charles Scribner's Sons).

389

References

Overton, Basil (1973), Evolution or Creation? (Nashville, TN: Gospel
Advocate).

Overton, Basil (1981), Evolution in the Light of Scripture, Science,
and Sense (Winona, MS: Choate).

Packer,] .1., Merrill C. Tenney, and William White] r. (1980),TheBible
Almanac (Nashville, TN: Nelson).

Patterson, Colin (1981), Speech given in November at American Mu¬
seum of Natural H istory in New York City. 0notations are from au¬
dio tape transcript. SeeBethell (1985) for a report on Dr. Patterson's
speech.

Patterson, Colin (1982), "Cladistics," Interview on British Broadcasting
Corporation, March 4; Peter Franz, interviewer: Brian Lak, producer.

Pearson, A.T. (1953), "An Exegetical Study of Genesis 1:1-3," Bethel
Seminary Quarterly, 11:22, November.

Pember, George H. (1876), Earth's Earliest Ages (New York: Revell).

PenziasArno, (1992), as quoted in Cosmos, Bios, andTheos, ed. Henry
Margenau and Abraham Varghese (La Salle, IL: Open Court Pub¬
lishers).

Pieters, Albertus (1947), Notes on Genesis (Grand Rapids, Ml: Eerd-
mans).

Pilgrim, ] ames (1976), "Day Seven," Gospel Advocate, 118[33]:522,
August 12.

Pitman, Michael (1984), Adam and Evolution (London: Rider).

Poole, Michael (1990), A Guide to Science and Belief (Oxford, England:
Lion).

Press, Frank (1984), "Preface," Science and Creationism: A View from
the National Academy of Sciences (Washington, D.C.: National
Academy of Sciences).

Provine, William (no date), "Evolution and the Foundation of Ethics,"
MBL [Marine Biological Laboratory] Science, 3[1]. [A shorter ver¬
sion of this paper appeared as a guest editorial in the September 5,
1988 issue of The Scientist.]

Pun, PattleP.T. (1987), "A Theory of Progressive Creationism," ] our-
nal of the American Scientific Affiliation, 39:14, March.

390

References

Ramm, Bernard (1954), The Christian View of Science and Scripture
(Grand Rapids, Ml: Eerdmans).

Rehwinkie, Aifred (1974), The Wonders of Creation (Grand Rapids,
Ml: Baker).

Rendle-Short, J ohn (1984), Man: Ape or Image—The Christian's Di-
iemma (San Diego, CA: Master Books).

Ricci, Paui (1986), Fundamentaisof Criticai Thinking (Lexington, MA:
Ginn Press).

Ridderbos, N.H. (1957), Is There a Conflict Between Genesis 1 and
Naturai Science? (Grand Rapids, Ml: Eerdmans).

Riegle, D.D. (1962), Creation or Evoiution? (Grand Rapids, Ml: Zonder-
van).

Rimmer, Harry (1937), Modern Science and the Genesis Record (Grand
Rapids, Ml: Eerdmans).

Rohl, DavidM. (1995), Pharaohsand Kings:A Biblical Quest (New York:
Crown).

Ross, Hugh (1991), The Fingerprint of God (Orange, CA: Promise
Pubiishing).

Ross, Hugh (1994), Creation and Time (Coiorado Springs, CO: Nav-
press).

Rusch, Wiibert H. (1991), Origins: What is at Stake? (Kansas City,
MO: Creation Research Society Books).

Ruse, Michaei (1979), The Darwinian Revoiution (Chicago, IL: Uni¬
versity of Chicago Press).

Russeii, Bertrand (1961), Reiigion and Science (London: Oxford U ni-
versity P ress).

Russeii, Bertrand (1969), Autobiography (New York: Simon & Schus¬
ter).

Sadier, Michaei E. (1988), "Physics," Evoiution and Faith, ed.J .D. Thom¬
as (Abiiene, TX: ACU Press).

Sagan, Cari (1980), Cosmos (New York: Random House).

Sagan, Cari (1997), Biiiionsand Biiiions(New York: Random House).

Sagan, Cari and Ann Druyan (1990), "The Question of Abortion," Pa¬
rade, Aprii 22.

391

References

Sailhamer, J ohn (1990), The Expositor's Bible Commentary, ed. Frank
Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, Ml: Zondervan).

Sartre,] ean Paul (1961), "Existentialism and Humanism," French Phi¬
losophers from Descartes to Sartre, ed. Leonard M. Marsak (New
York: Meridian).

Sartre, J ean Paul (1966), "Existentialism," Reprinted in A Casebook on
Existentialism, ed. William V. Spanos(New York: ThomasY. Crow¬
ell Co.).

Scholander, P.F. (1953), "Body Insulation of Some Arctic and Tropical
Mammals and Birds," Biological Bulletin 99.

Schroeder, Gerald L. (1990), Genesis and the Big Bang (New York:
Bantam).

Schroeder, Gerald L. (1997), The Science of God (New York: Free Press).

Schwartz,] effrey FI. (1999), Sudden Origins (New Y ork:] ohn Wiley &
Sons).

Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of
Sciences(1984), (Washington, D.C.: NationalAcademy ofSciences).

Scofield, Cyrus I., ed. (1917), Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Ox¬
ford University Press).

Sears, ] ack Wood (1969), Conflict and FI armony in Science and the
Bible (Grand Rapids, Ml: Baker).

Segraves, Kelly L. (1973), ] esus Christ Creator (San Diego, CA: Cre¬
ation-Science Research Center).

Sheler,]effery L. (1999), Isthe Bible True? (San Francisco, CA: Flarper-
Collins).

Simpson, George Gaylord (1953), Life of the Past (New Flaven, CT:
Yale University Press).

Simpson, George Gaylord (1960), "The World into Which Darwin Led
Us," Science, 131:966-969, April 1.

Simpson, George Gaylord (1964), This View of Life (New Y ork: Flar-
court and Brace).

Simpson, George Gaylord (1967), The Meaning of Evolution (New
Flaven, CT: Yale University Press), second edition.

392

References

Simpson, George Gaylord, C.S. Pittendrigh, and L.H. Tiffany (1957),
Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: H arcourt. Brace, and
World).

Simpson, George Gaylord and W.S. Beck (1965), Life: An Introduction
to Biology (New York: H arcourt. Brace and World), second edition.

Smith, H uston (1982), "Evolution and Evolutionism," Christian Century,
p. 755, July 7-14.

Smith, Wilbur M. (1945), Therefore Stand! (Grand Rapids, Ml: Baker).

Speiser, E.A. (1964), "Genesis," The Anchor Bible Commentary (New
York: Doubleday).

Stone, Nathan (1944), Names of God (Chicago, IL: Moody).

Strahler, Arthur N. (1999), Science and Earth H istory: The Evolution/
Creation Controversy (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus), second edition.

Sunderland, Luther (1984), Darwin’s Enigma (San Diego, CA: Master
Books).

Surburg, Raymond (1959), "In the Beginning God Created," Darwin,
Evolution, and Creation, ed. P.A. Zimmerman (St. Louis, MO: Con¬
cordia).

Surburg, Raymond (1969), Bible-Science Newsletter, p. 2, April 15.

Taylor, Ian (1984), In the Minds of Men (Toronto: TFE Publishing).

Taylor, Kenneth (1974), Evolution and the H igh School Student (Wheat¬
on, IL: Tyndale).

Taylor, Robert (1974), "More Problems forTheistic Evolutionists," Gos¬
pel Advocate, 116[l]2,6-7, j anuary 3.

Teller, Woolsey and j ames D. Bales (1976), The Existence of God-A
Debate (Shreveport, LA: Lambert).

Thayer, j .H. (1962), Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
(Grand Rapids, Ml: Zondervan).

Thaxton, Charles B., Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen (1984), The
Mystery of Life’s Origin (New York: Philosophical Library).

Thiele, Edwin (1963),"Chronology, Old Testament," Zondervan Pictorial
Bible Dictionary, ed. Merrill C. Tenney (Grand Rapids, Ml: Zonder¬
van).

Thiele, Edwin (1977), A Chronology of the H ebrew Kings (Grand Rap¬
ids, Ml: Zondervan).

393

References

Thielicke, Helmut(1961), HowtheWorld Began (Philadelphia, PA: Muhl¬
enberg Press).

Thomas, J .D. (1961), Evolution and Antiquity (Abilene, TX: Biblical
Research Press).

Thomas, J .D. (1965), Facts and Faith (Abilene, TX: Biblical Research
Press).

Thomas,] .D., ed. (1988), Evolution and Faith (Abilene, TX: ACU Press).

Thompson, Bert (1977), TheisticEvolution (Shreveport, LA: Lambert).

Thompson, Bert (1981), "WeToldYouWhereBeliefin Evolution Would
Lead—Now See for Yourself," Sound Doctrine, 6[2]:11-12, April-
J une.

Thompson, Bert (1982), "The Day-AgeTheory: Another False Compro¬
mise of the Genesis Account of Creation," Reason & Revelation,
2:29-32, July.

Thompson, Bert (1986), Is Genesis Myth? (Montgomery, AL: Apolo¬
getics Press).

Thompson, Bert (1994), "Faith and Knowledge," Reason & Revelation,
14:25-27,29-31, April.

Thompson, Bert (1999a), "The Bible and theAgeof the Earth [Part III],"
Reason & Revelation, 19:67-70, September.

Thompson, Bert (1999 b), The Bible and theAgeof the Earth, (Mont¬
gomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Thompson, Bert (1999c), My Sovereign, My Sin, MySalvation (Mont¬
gomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Thompson, Bert (1999d), Satan—H is Origin and Mission (Montgom¬
ery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Thompson, Bert (1999e), The Scientific Case for Creation (Mont¬
gomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Thompson, Bert (2000a), The Origin, Nature, and Destiny of the Soul
(Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Thompson, Bert (2000b), Rock-Solid Faith: How to Build It (Mont¬
gomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Thompson, Bert (2001), Rock-Solid Faith: H ow to Sustain It (Mont¬
gomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

394

References

Thompson, Keith S. (1982), "The Meanings of Evolution," American Sci¬
entist, September/October.

Thompson, W.R. (1956), "Introduction," The Origin of Species (New
York: E.P. Dutton & Sons), pp. vii-xxv.

Thurman, Clem (1986), "The Genesis 'Day' and Age of Earth," Gospel
Minutes, 35[14]:2-3, April 4.

Tiffin, Lee (1994), Creationism's Upside-Down Pyramid: How Sci¬
ence Refutes Fundamentalism (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus).

Tipler, Frank (1994), The Physics of Immortality (New York: Double¬
day).

Trench, R.C. (1890), Synonyms of the New Testament (London: Kegan,
Purl, Trench, Trubner & Co.).

Turner, Rex A. Sr. (1980), Systematic Theology (Montgomery, AL: Ala¬
bama Christian School of Religion).

Unger, Merrill (1954), Archaeology and the Old Testament (Grand
Rapids, Ml: Zondervan).

Unger, Merrill (1966), Unger'sBibleHandbook (Chicago, IL: Moody).

Unger, Merrill (1973), Archaeology and the Old Testament (Grand Rap¬
ids, Ml, Zondervan).

Van Bebber, Mark and Paul S. Taylor (1996), Creation and Time: A
Report on the Progressive Creationist Book by H ugh Ross (Gil¬
bert, AZ: Eden Communications).

Van Till, Howard). (1986), The Fourth Day (Grand Rapids, Ml: Zonder¬
van).

Van Till, Howard)., R.E. Snow,) .H. Stek, and Davis A. Y oung (1990),
Portraits of Creation (Grand Rapids, Ml: Eerdmans).

Vine, W.E. (1951), First Corinthians (Grand Rapids, Ml: Zondervan).

Wald, George (1955), "The Origin of Life," The Physics and Chemistry
of Life (New York: Simon & Schuster).

Wald, George (1979), "The Origin of Life," Writing About Science, ed.
M.E. Bowen and) .A. Mazzeo (New York: Oxford University Press).
[NOTE: This is a reprint of Dr. Wald's award-winning article, which ap¬
peared originally in Scientific American, 191[2]:44-53, August 1954.)

Watson, D.M.S. (1929), "Adaptation," Nature, 123:233, August 10.

395

References

Watson,J amesD. (1987), Molecular Biology of the Gene (New York:
W.A. Benjamin).

Weiser, Arthur (1961), The Old Testament: Its Formation and Devel¬
opment (New York: Association Press).

Wells, Albert (no date). The Christian Message in a Scientific Age
(Richmond, VA: j ohn Knox Press).

WestminsterDictionaryoftheBible(no date), (Philadelphia, PA: West¬
minster).

Wharton, Edward C. (no date). Genesis H istorical...Or Mythological?
(West Monroe, LA: Howard), a tract.

Whitcomb,] ohnC. (1972),TheEarlyEarth (GrandRapids, Ml: Baker).

Whitcomb, j ohn C. (1973a), "The Days of Creation," And God Cre¬
ated, ed. Kelly L. Segraves (San Diego, CA: Creation-Science Re¬
search Center), 2:61-65.

Whitcomb,] ohn C. (1973b), "TheGapTheory," And God Created, ed.
Kelly L. Segraves (San Diego, CA: Creation-Science Research Cen¬
ter), 2:67-71.

Whitcomb, j ohn C. (1975), "The Science of H istorical Geology in the
Light of the Biblical Doctrineof a Mature Creation,"Westminster The¬
ological j ournal. Fall.

Whitcomb, j ohn C. (1978), The Moon: Its Creation, Form, and Sig¬
nificance (Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books).

White, ] .E.M. (1970), Ancient Egypt (New York: Dover).

Whitelaw, Thomas (no date), "Genesis," Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rap¬
ids, Ml: Eerdmans).

Wieland, Carl (1994), "Decreased Lifespans: Have We Been Looking
in the Right Place?," Creation Ex N i hi I o Technical j ournal, 8[2]:
139-140.

Wilder-Smith, A.E. (1975), Man’s Origin: Man’s Destiny (Minneapolis,
MN: Bethany Fellowship).

Williams, Arthur F. (1965), Creation Research Annual (Ann Arbor,
Michigan: Creation Research Society).

Williams, Arthur F. (1970), "The Genesis Account of Creation," Why
NotCreation?, ed. WalterE. Lammerts(Grand Rapids, Ml: Baker).

396

References

Williams, Glanville (1957), TheSanctity of Lifeand theCriminal Law
(New York: Knopf).

Willis,] ohnT. (1979), "Genesis," The Living Word Commentary (Aus¬
tin, TX: Sweet).

Wilson, Clifford (1975), In the Beginning God... (Grand Rapids, Ml: Bak¬
er).

Wilson, E.O. (1982), "Toward a H umanistic Biology," The H umanist,
p. 40, September/October.

Wilson,] ames Maurice, etal. (1925), Evolution in the Light of Mod¬
ern Knowledge (New York: Van Nostrand).

Wonderly, Dan (1977), God's Time Records in Ancient Sediments
(Flint, Ml: Crystal Press).

Woodmorappe,] ohn (1999), The Mythology of Modern DatingMeth-
ods (El Ca]on, CA: Institute for Creation Research).

Woods, GuyN. (1976a), "Man Created in God'simage," Gospel Advo¬
cate, 118[33]:514,518, August.

Woods, Guy N. (1976b), Questions and Answers: Open Forum, (Flen-
derson, TN: Freed-FIardeman University).

Woods, GuyN. (1982), '"And be not Conformed to this World,"' Gos¬
pel Advocate, 124[1]:2, ] anuary 7.

Wysong, R.L. (1976), The Creation-Evolution Controversy (East Lan¬
sing, Ml: Inquiry Press).

Young, Davis A. (1977), Creation and the Flood (Grand Rapids, Ml:
Baker).

Young, Davis A. (1982), Christianity and the Age of the Earth (Grand
Rapids, Ml: Zondervan).

Young, DavisA. (1987), "Scripture in the FI andsof Geologists, Partll,"
Westminster Theological ] ournal, 49:303.

Young, DavisA. (1990), "WastheEarthCreatedaFewThousandYears
Ago?," The Genesis Debate, ed. Ronald F. Y oungblood (Grand Rap¬
ids, Ml: Baker). [Young answers in the negative.]

Young, Edward]. (1960), An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand
Rapids, Ml: Eerdmans).

Young, Edward]. (1964), Studiesin Genesis One (Nutley, N]: Presby¬
terian and Reformed).

397

References

Young, Willard (1985), Fallaciesof Creationism (Calgary, Canada: Det-
selig Enterprises, Ltd.).

Zimmerman, PaulA. (1968), "Can WeAcceptTheistic Evolution?," A
Symposium on Creation, ed. Henry M. Morris (Grand Rapids, Ml:
Baker), 1:55-78. [Zimmerman answers in the negative.]

Zimmerman, PaulA. (1972), "TheWordofGodToday," Creation, Evo¬
lution, and God'sWord, ed. P.A. Zimmerman (St. Louis, MO: Con¬
cordia).

Zirkle, Conway (1959), Evolution, Marxian Biology, and the Social
Scene (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press).

398

Subject Index

Abel, 258, 325, 368
Age of Earth and, 258
Abilene Christian University,
no -114
Abortion, 24, 26
Sagan, Carl and Ann Druyan
on, 26 - 31

Supreme Court decision on,

Abraham, 154,173 - 176,250 -
252, 355, 366, 368
Age at Isaac's birth, 173
Age at Ishmael's birth, 366
Biblical genealogies and, 252
Birth date of, 174
Adam, 18, 19, 78, 92, 95, 99,
103, 117, 136 - 138, 140,
147 - 150, 174, 157, 173 -
176, 180, 185, 205 - 207,
209 - 212,229 - 230,232 -
233, 235 - 236, 238, 242,
248, 250 - 252, 255, 258 -
270, 315, 317 - 318, 320 -
321, 323 - 325, 331, 355,
358,368

Activities on day six of cre¬
ation, 205 - 210
Age at death, 358
Apparent age and, 264 - 270
"Clan" of, 368
Death prior to, 229 - 246
Death's entrance into world
via, 232

Figure of Christ, as a, 18, 231
First man, 230, 251, 321
Gap Theory and, 229 - 230
Flistorical nature of, 18, 149,
321

Intelligence of, 207 - 208
Sabbath still continuing and,
211

"Type" of Christ, 19, 321
Age of Earth (see: Earth, age of)
Ahab, 173

Ahio, Ark of Covenant and, 311
Allis, Oswald T., 222, 349, 354
American FI umanist Association,
80

American School Board] ournal,
78

American Scientific Affiliation,
107,130 - 131, 138

399

Subject Index

Animals

Effect of man's fall on, 240
H erbivorous prior to Flood,
239

Intrinsic value of, 24
Anthropomorphism(s), 155
Apostasy, creation compro¬
mises and, 330 - 336
Apostles, 176
Apparent age
Doctrine of, 264 - 273
Earth and, 264 - 265
arche, Greek word, 255
Archer, Gleason
Day-Age Theory and,

206 - 207
Arphaxad, 174
Artistico-H istorical Theory
[Framework Flypothesis]
303 - 308

asah, Flebrew word, 221 - 226,
288 - 295,347 - 348
Associated Press, 79
Assumption, definition of, 50
Assyrian Eponym Lists, 173
atakteo, Greek word, 9
Atomic Energy Commission, 70
Auburn University, 120
Augustine, 277
Axiom, ethical, 22

Baal, 98

Babel, tower of, 324, 330
"Baby Doe" hospital case, 30

"Babylonian Genesis," Enuma
Elish as the, 143
Babylonian captivity, 153
Baptism, figurative use of, 352
bara, Flebrew word, 221 - 226,

288 - 295, 347 - 349
Beagle, H.M.S., 133
Beliefs

Consequences of, 19
Implications of, 32
Importance of, 19
Bible

Age of Earth and, 163 - 308
Inspired Word of God, 32 - 33,
74, 79, 96 - 97, 118 - 119,
134,161,170,257,309 -
310, 334, 358

Literal vs. figurative nature of,
145

Revelation and, 87 - 98
Science textbook, as, 90, 170
Big Bang, 63, 83, 112 - 113
Clayton, j ohn N. and, 289
Genesis creation account vs.,
113

Floover, Arlie j. and, 112
Modified Gap Theory and,

289

Biological Sciences Curriculum
Study, 51

Biopolymers, origin of life
and, 61

Birth control, 24
Brangus cattle, 37
Brooks, Ronald M.

Sabbath still continuing and,
213

400

Subject Index

Cain, 368
City buiit by, 259
Cainan, 174, 366
Caivin Coiiege, 91
Canaan, 213
Carneii, Edward j ohn,

Day-Age Theory and, 185
Cathoiic Church, 48
Chiidbirth, Eve's pain in, 263
Choice, freedom of, 3
Christjesus, 7-8,10,14-15,17
- 19,89,95 - 97,101,104 -
105,119,125,147 -151,158,
160-161,176-178,282,311
Adam and, 147 -150
Age of man on Earth and,

298 - 299, 314 -
316, 322, 356
Authority in teaching, 15
Creator, as, 18
Genesis 1-11, view of, 147 -
149

Incarnation of, 89
"Liar," as a, 313 - 315
Resurrection of, 361
Sermon on the Mount, 311
Sinless nature of, 314
Virgin birth of, 361
"Christian evolutionists," 118
Christianity, 13
"H igher form of superstition,"
as a, 125

Christianity Today, 78, 94, 178

Chronology

Age of Earth and, 163 -180
Biblical, age of Earth and,
163 - 308

City, Cain built a, 263
Clayton, j ohn N.

Adam's creation and, 248
Age of Earth and, 172
asah and, 289 - 295
bara and, 290 - 296
Biblical genealogies and,
248,252

Big Bang and, 289
Day-Age Theory and, 185
Eve's curse and, 259
Exodus 20:11, view of,

138,285,294
Garden of Eden, man's
time in, 259

Genesis 1:1-2 and, 283
H istorical nature of Genesis
1-2 and, 138 -140
Methuselah, age of, 364
Modified Gap Theory and,
220, 223, 281 - 296
Non-World View and, 297
Patriarchs' ages and,

359 - 360

"Private theology" of,

287 - 288

Theistic evolution and, 107
Cockapoo dogs, 37
Coffman, Burton, Day-
Age Theory and, 187
"Committees of Corre¬
spondence," 80

401

Subject Index

Compromise

Apostasy and, 329 - 332,

335 - 336

Contradictions with bibiicai text
caused by, 321 - 325
Effect on faith, 334, 336
Fruits of, 311, 329
Genesis record and, 275 - 308
"Majority" and, 310
Origins and, 135
Preiude to apostasy, 329 - 338
Preiude to iiberaiism, 334 - 335
Preiude to ioss of a soui,

335 - 336

Reasons for, 310 - 311
Voices of, 87 -116
What is wrong with?,

309 - 327

Constitution, United States, 20
Contradictions, Bibie/evoiution,
321 - 325
Controversy, 35
Creation/evoiution, 41 - 42
Creationism and, 17
Corneii University, 129
Cosmogony, definition of, 97
Cosmoiogy, definition of, 97
Creation, 17, 75
Attacks on, 80 - 81
Cosmogony, as a, 36
Defined, 74

"Fact" of science, 83 - 85
Importance of, 18
Origins and, 73 - 85
Popularity of, 75 - 81
Why people believe in,

81-82

Creation Ex Nihilo Tech¬
nical J ournal, 361
Creation Research Society
Quarterly, 268
Creationism, 80 - 81
Creationists, 54, 76, 78, 80-81
Consistency of, 124
"Dishonest" nature of, 54
Evolutionists' view of, 5
"Fools," as, 120, 123
"Logical illiterates," as,

120,122

Menaces, as, 120, 123
"Scientific simpletons," as,
120,122
Creator

Theistic evolution and, 119
Unnecessary in evolution, 39
Worshiping creature rather
than the, 4
Custance, Arthur C.,

Biblical genealogies and, 249
Day-Age Theory and, 195
Gap Theory, 220

Darwin Centennial Convocation,
51, 126

Darwin, Charles, 25, 51, 56, 71,
119,125,312,320, 334
Old Testament, view of, 134
Origin of Species and,

55, 57, 121, 133, 136
Davidheiser, Bolton,

Progressive creationism,
definition of, 276

402

Subject Index

Day six of creation, too much
activity on, 205 - 210
Day, thousand years as a,
201-204

Day-Age Theory, 181 - 215
Arguments against, 192 - 216
Ator, j .T. and, 113
Botany and, 199
Ciayton, j ohn N. and, 185
Day six of creation and,

205 - 210

Lexicai evidence for, 188 -191
Popuiarity of, 184 -187
Sears, j ack Wood and, 186
Sun and, 197 -199
Debates

Age of Earth, 171
Creation vs. evoiution, 80
Sears-Thompson on age of the
Earth, 171, 186, 342 - 343
Deciaration of Independence, 20
Deism, creationist teachings
and, 92

Dendrochronoiogy, 178
Descent of Man, 25
Design, 74 - 75, 82
Diamond, j ared, 324 - 325
Dinosaurs, Modified Gap
Theory and, 289
Discover, 52, 68, 107
Divorce, 24

DNA, 52, 67, 167, 297, 361
Documentary Hypothesis,

141 - 143, 152 - 161
Doubie Reveiation Theory,
90-98

Drosophiia meianogaster, 68

Earth, 92

Age of, 92, 112, 163 - 308
Design of for man, 324
Destruction of in Gap
Theory, 227 - 228
Modified Gap Theory and,
284,289

Eden, Garden of, 14,138, 205 -
207,238 - 239,258 - 259,
264,325

Chiidren born outside
the, 260
Death in, 237
Length of time Adam
and Eve spent in the,

259 - 264
Egypt

Israeiites' sojourn in, 173
Did Kingdom, 177
Predynastic period, 177
eita, Greek word, 209 - 210
ek, Greek word, 149
Eiohim, H ebrew word,

153 - 154,293
Embryonic recapituiation,
26-29

Abortion and, 26-31
Bonner, j ohn Tyier and, 29
"Giiis" in humans and,

26-29

"Ontogeny recapituiates
phyiogeny" and, 26 - 29
Sagan, Cari/Ann Druyan,
and 26-29

403

Subject Index

England, Donald, 134,172,181 -
182, 248, 296 - 302, 339 -
356

Age of Earth and, 172, 182
Biblical genealogies and, 248
"Loaded" questionnaire of,

339 - 356

Multiple Gap Theory and,

299 - 302
Non-World View of,

134, 296 - 299
Enoch, 175, 252, 366
Enos, 175, 366
Enosh, 250
Enuma Ellsh, 143
epolsesen, Greek word, 148
Error

Christian's attitude toward, 9
Effects of teaching, 7 - 8
Eternity magazine, 104
Ethics

Definition of, 21
Evolution and, 20-21
Morality and, 20
Euthanasia, 31

Eve, 78,92,117, 136 - 138,148
- 149, 180, 185, 205 - 206,
209 - 211, 212, 229, 231,
235, 238, 242, 255, 258 -
264, 315, 317 - 318, 320,
331,355,368
Compromise of, 332
Curse of God upon,

259, 262 - 263
Origin of, 94
Problem for thelstic evo¬
lutionists, 318 - 319

"Evening and morning,"

185,193 - 197
Evil, 22
Origin of, 87
Trlumph of, 10
Evolution, 17
Universe and, 39
Atheistic, 35 - 71
Cosmogony, as a, 36
Defined, 36 - 39
Effect on religion, 124
Ethics and, 22
"Fact" of science, 5, 50 -
71, 310

General Theory of, 37, 94,
123,230,312
God unnecessary In, 126
H uman life, value of and,
24-31

Implications of accepting,

123 -131

Natural selection and,

70 - 71
Organic, 345
Popularity of, 39 - 40
Principle of biology,
as a, 40

Survival of the fittest and,

25, 48, 127
Theory, as a, 53
Why people believe, 40 - 50
evolvere, Latin word, 36
ex nihllo creation, 17, 75, 221,
348 - 350

Ex Nihllo journal, 272
Exodus, date of the, 173

404

Subject Index

Fact, redefining of word,

55, 70
Faith

Bibiicai, 14, 82
"Biind," 82
Creation and, 82
Effect of compromise on, 33
Flebrews 11 and, 17
Faii, man's, 119
Theistic evoiution and, 320
Fieas, iife span of, 361
Fiood, Genesis, 216, 251, 325
Date of, 174

Fossiis, story toid by the, 326
Framework Flypothesis
[Artistico-FI istoricai
Theory], 303 - 308
Freed-Flardeman University, 333
Fuiier Theoiogicai Seminary, 276

Gaiiieo, 48

Gaiiup poii(s), creation/
evoiution, 78 - 80, 334
Gap Theory, 101, 189,

217 - 246, 282, 298
Adam and, 229 - 230
asah and, 221, 223 - 226
bara and, 222 - 226
Ciayton, J ohn and, 286
Defined, 219
Fossiis and, 229

hayetha and, 226
"Mentai gymnastics" and,

222

Modified, 281 - 296
Pre-Adamic Cataciysm
Theory, 218
Restitution Theory, 218
Ruin-and-Reconstruction
Theory, 218
Ruination/ Recreation
Theory, 218

Satan and, 219, 221, 226
Synonyms of, 218
Thomas, J .D. and. 111, 220
tohu wabohu and, 226 - 228
Geisier, Norman L.,

Sabbath stiii continuing
and, 213
Geneaiogies
Age of Earth and,

249 - 253

Gaps in bibiicai, 249
Generai Reveiation (see:

Reveiation, Generai)
Generai Theory of Evoiu¬
tion (see: Evoiution,
Generai Theory of)
Genesis, 17, 76 - 77
Attacks on, 1
Contradictions with
creation compromises,
321,325

"Contradictory" creation
accounts in, 152 - 155,
161

Literary styie of, 135, 137
"Mythicai" nature of, 95

405

Subject Index

Genesis 1-11

Literal history, as, 144 -161
"Mythical" nature of,

91, 94, 133 - 161
Theistic evolutionists
and, 135
Genetics
Bible and, 355
DNA and, 67
Mutations and, 68
God

Character of, 87, 90,

97, 150,155
Creator, as, 74, 106
Evolution's workings and, 127
Honorary Creator, as,

313,336
Lying and, 7, 90
Nature of and evolution,

325 - 327

Revelation from, 87 - 89
Unnecessary in evolution, 126
Work today, 93
Gospel, 13, 16 -17
Gospel Minutes, 186
Graf-Wellhausen Docu¬
mentary Hypothesis,

141 - 143, 152 - 161
Green, William H., 157
Biblical genealogies and, 249

Haeckel, Ernst, 27, 29
Haran, 174

Harding Graduate School
of Religion, 339

Harding University, 117,
134,170,296,301,
340, 342,344
Hauret, Charles,

Framework Hypothesis
[Artistico-H istorical
Theory] and, 305
hayetha, Hebrew word,
221,226
H ayward, Alan,

Day-Age Theory and,
185, 205 - 206
H edonism

Evolution and, 23 - 24
Utilitarian, 22
H itier, Adolf, 20
Hobart College, 68
H oover, Arlie j., 112 -113
Big Bang and, 112
H umanist Manifesto, 23
Hypothesis
Definition of a, 50
Evolution as a, 57, 70

In the Shadow of Darwin: A
Review of the Teachings
of] ohn N. Clayton, 282
Infanticide, 31
Irenaeus, 75
Isaac, 154
Ishmael, 366

Israelites, length of sojourn
in Egypt, 173
Issachar, 193

406

Subject Index

j acob, 369

Laban's bargain with, 354
j esus Christ (see: Christ, j esus)
j ob, saivation via naturai
reveiation?, 93
j ordan, j ames B., 176, 249
Bibiicai geneaiogies and, 249
j ournai of the American
Scientific Affiiiation, 105
j udah, 177

j esus descended from tribe of,
177, 248

Kinds, bibiicai concept of,

75,92,322

Kitchen, Kenneth A., 153,

155, 159, 251

Kiotz, John W., 77, 184, 194
Day-Age Theory and, 197
kosmos, Greek word, 256
ktiseos, Greek word, 255

Laban, 354

j acob's bargain with, 354
Lamech, 175
Lenski, R.C.H.

Sabbath stiii continuing and,
214-215

Liberaiism, compromise as
preiude to, 334 - 335
Lie, beiieving a, 3
Life

From noniife, 65, 82
Origin of, 36, 65
Spontaneous generation and,
62, 73, 166 - 168
Vaiue of human, 24
Light, speed of, 272
Luke, 251

Bibiicai geneaiogies and, 355

Macroevoiution, 37
Mammoth, wooiiy, 241
Man

Created in "image of
God," 32, 326
Destiny of, 88
"H igher animai," as a,
315-316

Morai nature of, 324
"Naked ape," as a, 47,
315-318
Origin of, 87, 322
Purpose of on Earth, 87
Soui of and theistic evo-
iution, 319

Time on Earth, 247, 313 -
314,316,318, 322, 355
Mary, mother of Christ, 210
Melver, Tom,

Modified Gap Theory and,
283

407

Subject Index

Meaninglessness, philosophy
of, 49

Mein Kampf, 20
Mercy killing, 31
Methuselah

Age of at death, 358 - 359
Clayton, j ohn on age of,

359 - 360, 364
Microevolution, 37
Miracles, 89
Apparent age concept
and, 265

Time performs?, 166 -169
Modernism, compromise
as prelude to, 334 - 335
Modified Gap Theory, 281 - 296
asah and, 289 - 296
bara and, 289 - 296
Clayton, j ohn N. and,

220, 223,281 - 282,

284 - 285,289 - 290,

292 - 295, 341
Creation of man and,

284 - 285, 290
Exodus 20:11 and, 285, 294
Soul of man and, 292
Moody Bible Institute, 184
Moon, 159, 185, 198,

225,265,295
Modified Gap Theory
and, 289, 295
Morality

Definition of, 22
Evolution and, 23
Mosaical Age, 14

Moses, 1, 8, 18, 139, 141 -
142,148 - 149, 152, 173,
175, 181, 193, 198, 211,
224, 231, 257, 265, 285,
287, 294, 294, 298, 311,
321 - 323,331 - 332,349,
354,366,369
Authorship of Pentateuch
and, 153 -154
Christ and, 18
H istoricity of Genesis 1-2
and, 139

Multiple Gap Theory, 298 -303
England, Donald and,

300 - 303,353
Mutations, genetic, 68
Myopia, spiritual, 16, 18
Mysticism, synonym for
creation, 33

Myth, teaching truth via a, 6

NASA,65

National Academy of Sciences,
120, 128 - 131
National Geographic, 107
Natural Revelation (see:

Revelation, Natural)

Natural selection, 70, 93
Mechanism of evolution, 69
Naturalism
Evolution and, 118
Evolutionists' commitment
to, 45 - 46
Science and, 85

408

Subject Index

Nature, 52, 65, 67
Nehemiah, 15
Geshom and, 332
Sanballat and, 332
New Scientist, 52, 66
New York Times, 80, 141, 334
Noah, 174, 324
noeo, Greek word, 256
Non-Worid View, 296 - 299
Ciayton, j ohn N. and, 297
Engiand, Donaid and,

134, 296 - 299, 341
Noordtzij, Arie
Framework Hypothesis
[Artistico-H istoricai
Theory] and, 303,

305-307
North Poie, 198

oinos, Greek word, 266
Okiahoma Christian University
of Science and Arts,
no, 114, 344
Omni, 52

"Ontogeny recapituiates
phyiogeny," 26-29
Origin of Species, The,

133,136
Origin science, 83
Origins, 17 -18, 35
Battie over, 2

Creation and, 73 - 78, 80 - 85
Evoiution and, 35
Modeis, 74

pa'am, Hebrew word, 209
Panspermia, directed, 62
Parade magazine, 26
Patriarchs

Bibie and ages of the,

357 - 370

Ciayton, j ohn N. and
ages of the, 359 - 360,

364, 366 - 367
Science and ages of the,

357 - 370

Paui, apostie, 16, 88,

242, 256 - 257
Peer pressure, compromise
and, 309 - 310
Pentateuch, Mosaic author¬
ship of, 152, 154
Peopie for the American Way,
80,334

Pepperdine University, 104
Peter, apostie, 203
Pharisees, 148
Physics Buiietin, 58
Poiis, creation/ evoiution, 78-80
Pottery, dating of, 179
Pre-Adamic Cataciysm Theory
[Gap Theory], 218
Priesthood, Leviticai, 248
Progressive creationism,

101 - 102, 275 - 281, 313
Hugh Ross and, 93
Theistic evoiution and,

102, 275 - 281
Purpose, Universe and, 23

409

Subject Index

Questionnaire, that "Loaded,"
339 - 356

Radiocarbon dating
Limits of, 178 -179
Ramm, Bernard,

Progressive creationism and,
276 - 281

Reader’s Digest, 107
Red Sea, parting of the, 361
Redactor, 153
Restitution Theory [Gap
Theory], 218
Reveiation

Bibie as God's, 87 - 98
Doubie Reveiation
Theory, 90 - 98
Essentiaiity of, 87, 267 - 269
Generai/Naturai, 88 -
98, 267 - 270

Speciai/Supernaturai, 88 - 90
Ridderbos, N.H.

Framework Hypothesis
[Artistico-H istoricai
Theory] and, 305
Right, absoiute criteria of, 22
Ross, Hugh,

Age of man on Earth and, 316
Day-Age Theory and,

185,206

Sabbath stiii continuing
and, 213

Rubik cube, 61
Ruination/Creation
Theory [Gap
Theory], 217-246

Sabbath, 200
Adam and Eve and, 212
Day-Age Theory and, 200
God's, 211 - 212
Stiii continuing, 211-216
Sabbatismos, Greek word, 213
Saiah, 174
Satan

Ezekiei 28/ Isaiah 14
and, 227

Gap Theory and, 221
Garden of Eden and,

261 - 262
God, battie against,

261 - 262
Saui, 311
Sceva, 176
Science

Definition of, 85
"Faiseiy so caiied," 5
Limitations of, 97, 151
Reiigion and, 129
Science and Creationism, 130
Science Digest, 27, 52, 363
Scientific American,

66, 73, 108

Scientific creationism, 276
Scientism, 337

410

Subject Index

Scofield Reference Bible,

Gap Theory and, 220
Scopes Trial, 76, 121
Sears, j ack Wood, 179 -171,
181 - 182,186,339-356
Age of Earth and, 170, 182
Day-Age Theory and,

182,186

"Loaded" questionnaire of,
339 - 356

Sears-Thompson debate,

171, 257, 342 - 343
Sermon on the Mount, 8
Seth, 174, 250, 365
"Clan" of, 368
Shem, 174 -175
Sin

Adam and Eve in Garden
of Eden and, 260
Definition of, 260
Noetic effects of, 97
Origin of, 321
Sin, human race and, 238
Situation ethics, j oseph
Fletcher and, 30
Society, weaker members of,
29-31
Sodom, 361
Soul

Compromise and loss of a
person's, 335 - 336
Man's eternal, 323
Modified Gap Theory and
man's, 292
Problem of for theistic
evolutionist, 319
South Pole, 198

Special Revelation (see:

Revelation, Special)
Special Theory of Evolution
(see: Evolution, Special
Theory of)

Spontaneous generation,

165 - 169, 280
Origin of life and, 62,

165 -169

Sun, 55, 159, 185, 197,

225,265,295,322
Light before the, 321
Modified Gap Theory
and, 289,295
Supernatural Revelation
(see: Revelation,
Supernatural)

Teachers, false, 331
Terah, 174

TexasA&M University, 24
Theistic evolution, 98 -113,
135, 151, 313, 335
Bible silent on, 312 - 313
Defined, 99 -100
Eve and, 318-319
Popularity of, 101
Progressive creationism and,
275, 277, 279 - 281
Theophanies, 89
Theory, definition of, 50
theos, Greek word, 99
Thomas, 210

411

Subject Index

Threshold evolution, 102,

276,278,313
Thurman, Clem, Day-Age
Theory and, 186
Tigers, fur of, 241
Time, importance in creation/
evolution controversy,

166 - 169, 345
Time magazine, 53
tohu wabohu, Hebrew
words, 221, 226 - 228
Truth

Absolute, 22
Battle over, 3
"Earthen vessels" and, 16
"Handling aright," 4, 7
Importance of, 2
Moral and ethical, 23
Popular opinion and, 310 -
311

Teaching via falsehood, 6

U.S. News Si World Report, 143
Unger, Merrill, 173
Day-Age Theory and, 185
Uniformitarianism, 325
Unity, Christ's prayer for
religious, 330
Universe, 225, 313
Big Bang and, 112
Design in, 345

Evolutionary origin of the, 39
Origin of, 50, 82, 84
University of Chicago, 126

University of Mississippi
Christian Student
Center, 339, 343
University of Utrecht, 303
Uzzah, Ark of Covenant
and, 311

Van Till, Howard].,

Day-Age Theory and, 185
Virgin birth, Christ's, 361
Vocabulary, false teachers'
new,293

Wheaton College, 92,103,109
Whitcomb, j ohn C.,

Sabbath still continuing
and, 212

Wilder-Smith, A.E.,

Day-Age Theory and, 200
Wine, j esus turns water
into, 266

Winona Lake School of
Theology, 246
Woods, Guy N.,

Day-Age Theory and,

197,199

Sabbath still continuing
and, 211

World Council of Churches, 137
Wrong, Absolute criteria of, 22

412

Subject Index

Yahweh, Hebrew word,

154,293

yamim, Hebrew word, 196
yatsar, Hebrew word, 290
yom, Hebrew word, 189 -
197, 351 - 352
defined, 194

Young, DavisA., 91, 140, 317
Age of man on Earth
and, 316

Day-Age Theory and, 185
H istorical nature of Genesis
1-2 and, 140

Zachariah, 258

413

414

ame Index

Aalders, G.C., 306
Ackerman, Paul, 169
Ailing, C., 177

Allis, Oswald!., 222, 349, 354
Anderson, J. Kerby, 83
Andrews, E.H., 145, 317, 334
Archer, Gleason, 158 - 159,
173-174, 177, 206 - 208
Armstrong, Karen, 141
Arndt, William, 256
Asimov, Isaac, 27 - 28, 52
Associated Press, 79
Astruc, J ean, 153
Ator,J.T., 111-113

Baikie, J ames, 177
Bales, J ames D., 37, 42, 51,
117,131,320
Barlow, Nora, 133
Barnes, Albert, 173
Barnhouse, DonaldG., 126-127
Barrow, J ohn D., 64

Barzun, J acques, 52
Bass, Thomas, 20, 324
Baxter, Batsell Barrett, 100
Beadle, George W., 102
Beck, Stanley, 101
Beck, William S., 55, 65
Beechick, Ruth, 174
Bennetta, William, 131
Berra, Tim M., 81
Berry, R.J., 137
Bethell, Tom, 60
Birch, L.C., 84
Birdsell,J .B., 324
Bishop, George, 80
Blackmore, Vernon, 81
Bloomfield, S.T., 256
Blum, Harold, 166
Bonner, J ohn Tyler, 29
Borland, J ames A.,

365 - 366, 368 - 369
Bradley, Walter, 83
Brandfon, Fredric, 179
Brantley, Garry K.,

143, 173, 178-179
Breasted, J ames, 177
Bromling, Brad T., 157, 277
Brooks, Ronald M., 213

415

Name Index

Bruce, F.F., 350
Bryan, William J ennings, 76
Buffaloe, Neal, 102, 104,

106 - 107, 114,138,

152, 340 - 341
Bultmann, Rudolf, 137
Buswell, J ames 0., 276, 279
Butt, Kyle, 251

Camp, Robert, 100,

125, 310,313
Carnell, Edward J ohn,

107,185,276,278
Cassel,J. Frank, 138,170 -171
Chalmers, Thomas, 218
Chardin, Theilhard de, 33
Christensen, Duane L.,

359 - 360,363,369
Clark, Robert!., 42
Clark, W. LeGros, 56, 58
Clarke, Adam, 173
Clayton,] ohn N., 104 - 107,112
- 113, 138 - 140,172, 185,
220, 223, 248 - 249, 252,
259, 262 - 263, 281 - 298,
340 - 341,359 - 360,363 -
367

Coffman, Burton, 187
Cooke, Robert, 30
Coppedge, J ames, 77 - 78, 115
Cremer, H., 255
Crick, Francis, 30, 68
Criswell, W.A., 71

Culp, G. Richard, 17, 132,

152, 308, 321, 335
Custance, Arthur C., 196,

220,235,249

Darlington, P.D., 38
Darrow, Clarence, 76, 121
Darwin, Charles, 5, 23, 25, 29,
47,51,55 - 63,66,70 - 71,
119 - 121, 125, 133-136,
312, 320, 334 - 335
Darwin, Francis, 23, 57
Davidheiser, Bolton, 103, 106,
no, 126, 151, 276, 278,
280 - 281, 319 - 320, 334
Davies, Paul, 63
Davis, John]., 31, 154, 365
Dawkins, Richard, 5, 20 - 21,
32, 54, 81, 122, 324
DeFloff, George, 220
Delitzsch, Franz, 157, 173
Denton, Michael,

62, 64, 71, 78, 124
Diamond, J ared, 324 - 325
Dillow, J oseph, 241, 363
Dobzhansky, Theodosius,

55 - 56, 58, 68
Dods, Marcus, 194
Dostoyevsky, Fyodor, 21
Douglas, J .D., 251
Druyan, Ann, 26, 29
du Nouy, LeCompte, 33
DYG, Inc., 80

416

Name Index

Ehrlich, Paul, 84
Eiseley, Loren, 325
Eldredge, Niles, 81, 131
England, Donald, 134, 172,

181 - 182,248,296 -
302, 339 - 356
Erickson, Millard J., 20
Eve, Raymond A., 81

Fair, Ian, 112 -113
Ferris, Timothy, 28
Fields, Weston W., 188 - 189,
192, 195, 199, 204, 216,
225,280,295,354
Filby, Frederick A., 366
Fletcher, J oseph, 30
Fortey, Richard, 321 - 322
Fox, Sidney, 68
Francella, Kevin, 283, 287
Freed-FI ardeman U niversity, 333
FullerTheological Seminary, 276
Futuyma, Douglas J.,

54, 70, 81, 129, 131

Gabel, J ohn B., 142
Ganus, Clifton L., 301
Gardner, Martin, 20
Geisler, Norman L., 83, 213

Gilman, O.M., 10
Gilmore, Ralph, 333
Gingrich, F.W., 256
Gipson, Mike, 114 -115
Gish, DuaneT., 27
Glanz, J ames, 80, 334
Glass, Bentley, 31
Godfrey, Laurie, 81
Gould, Stephen]., 40, 52 -
57, 68, 70, 131, 304
Grasse, Pierre Paul, 58, 78
Green, William FI., 157, 249
Greenstein, George, 63

Flaeckel, Ernst, 27, 29
Flail, Marshall and Sandra,
42, 44

Flam, Ken, 233
Flanson, Robert W., 81
Flarding Graduate School
of Religion, 339
Flarding University,

117, 134, 170, 296,
301, 340 - 342, 344
Flarrold, Francis B., 81
Hartshorne, M.H., 138
Flarvey, Van A., 6
Flauret, Charles, 305
Flayward, Alan, 150,

185, 205 - 206, 321
Hearn, Walter, 103
Hedegard, David, 137
Hefley, J ames, 104
Henkel, Malcolm, 246

4/7

Name Index

Henry, Matthew, 173
H ick, J ohn, 278
H immelfarb, Gertrude, 125
H itier, Adolf, 20
Hobart College, 69
Hoehner, Harold W., 173
Hoover, Arlle J., 112, 114
Horne, Thomas H., 146
Howard, Ted, 30
Howe, George, 151
Howells, W.W., 50
Hoyle, Fred, 60 -62, 66 -67, 84
Hughes, Norman, 104 -105
Hull, David, 127,230,324,326
H umphreys, Russell, 272
H uxley, Aldous, 49
H uxley, J ullan, 51, 120,

125 - 126,323
H uxley, Thomas H., 125

J ackson, Wayne, 105,112 -113,
139, 148 - 150, 152 - 153,
157, 169, 172 - 173, 180,
207, 220, 229, 243, 252,
256, 282 - 283, 321, 339,
341, 344, 355, 364
Jacobus, M.W., 156, 209
j amleson, Robert, 209
j astrow, Robert, 65, 84
j auncey, j ames, 109
j ohanson, Donald C., 322
j ohnson, Phillip, 123, 128
j ohnston, Howard, 159
j ordan, j ames B., 176, 249

Kaiser, Walter C., 208
Kautz,Darrel, 118,169,321,334
Keen, William W., 136
Kell, C.F., 173, 208, 223, 349
Keith, Arthur, 28, 45, 71
Kennedy, j ohn F., 19
Keoslan, j., 166
Kerkut, George A., 37, 56
Kessel, Edward L., 103
King, Martin Luther j r., 19
Kitchen, Kenneth A.,

153,155,159,251
KItcher, Philip, 81
Klingman, George, 220
Klotz, j ohn W.,

77, 184, 195, 198
Koch, Leo, 166
Krause, Hans, 242
Kristol, Irving, 53

Larlson, Lorraine L., 127
Larkin, Tracey, 120
Laughlln, j ohn, 179
Leakey, Richard, 23
LenskI, R.C.H., 203, 214 - 215
Leopold, H.C., 208,

357 - 358,368
Lever, j an, 102
Lewin, Roger, 23
Lewis, jackP., 339 - 341, 355
Lewontin, Richard, 45

418

Name Index

Lightfoot, J ohn, 180
Lightfoot, Neil, 112 -114
Lindsell, Harold, 94, 319 - 320
Lings, Martin, 336
Lipson, H .5., 58 - 59
Lloyd, J ames E., 71
Lloyd-Jones, D. Martin, 245
Lovtrup, Soren, 63, 78
Lygre, David, 30 - 31

Macbeth, Norman, 78, 122
MacKnight, J ames, 256
Maddox, J ohn, 67
Major, Trevor, 79, 84, 123,

178 - 179, 235, 237,

243, 264, 266, 271 - 272
Manis, Archie, 111, 152
Marsh, Frank Lewis,

77, 267 - 268, 270
Marx, Paul, 31
Mather, Kirtley F., 125, 323
Mattell, A.]., 124
Mauro, Philip, 173
Mayr, Ernst, 69
McClish, Dub, 171
McCord, Hugo, 110, 344,

349, 351 - 352, 354
McCormick, Richard, 30
McDowell, j osh, 153
Mclver, Tom, 81, 220, 283
McKenzie, j ohn L., 136
McKown, Delos B., 81, 120-121
Merrill, E.H., 173
Miller, Dave, 288

Miller, H.S., 149
Milligan, Robert, 220
Millikan, Robert, 57
Mixter, Russell, 107, 276, 278
Montagu, Ashley, 81
Moody Bible Institute, 184
Moody, Paul Amos, 40, 106
Moore, j ohn N., 29
Morris, Desmond, 23, 315
Morris, Henry M., 43, 45, 73,
75 - 78,91,98, 101, 109,
118, 127,147 - 149, 165,
169, 184,188 - 189, 192,
195 - 197, 199, 204, 208,
223, 227 - 228, 232, 276,
291, 305, 307, 321, 327,
335 - 336

Morris, j ohn D., 79, 169
Muller, Hermann]., 50
Murray, N. Patrick, 114,

138,152

NASA,65

National Academy of Sciences,
120,128 - 131
Newell, Norman D., 81
Newman, H.H., 76
Newport, Frank, 79
Nichols, j.R., 112
Niessen, Richard, 281, 321
Nilsson, Heribert, 77
Noordtzij, Arie, 303, 305- 307
Nordsiek, Frederic W., 363
Norman, Trevor, 272
Numbers, Ronald L., 81

419

Name Index

O'Keefe, J ohn, 64
Oklahoma Christian University
of Science and Arts,
no, 114, 344
Olsen, Roger, 83
Oparin, A.I., 167
Orgel, Leslie, 66
Orr, J ames, 103
Osborn, H enry Fairfield, 45
Overton, Basil, 76, 321

Packer, J.I., 173 -174
Page, Andrew, 81
Paley, William, 65
Parker, Gary E., 73,169
Patterson, Colin, 59 - 60, 69
Pember, George H.,

220 - 221, 229
Penzias, Arno, 64
People for the American Way,
80, 334

Pepperdine University, 104
Pieters, Albertus, 104
Pilgrim, J ames, 211
Pitman, Michael, 278
Poole, Michael, 96
Pope, Alexander, 338
Press, Frank, 128 -131
ProvIne, William, 129
Pun, Pattle P.T., 92

Ramm, Bernard, 108 -110,

137, 180, 184, 222, 226,
276 - 278, 280 - 281
Ramsey, A.M., 137
Reeves, P.C., 112
Rehwinkle, Alfred, 192
Rendle-Short, J ohn,

135,232,236,241
Ricci, Paul, 44
RIdderbos, N.FI., 305
RIegle, D.D., 181, 200, 257
RIfkIn, J eremy, 30
RImmer, Flarry, 220
Rohl, David M., 173, 177
Ross, FI ugh, 93, 185,

206,213,223, 316
Rusch, Wilbert H., 39, 75
Ruse, Michael, 81
Russell, Bertrand, 21,

126,324,326

Sadler, M.E., 112 -113
Sagan, Carl, 26, 29,

52, 321 - 322
Sallhamer, J ohn, 156
Sarich, Vincent, 131
Sartre, J ohn Paul, 21
Schroeder, Gerald L., 187,

315 - 317, 326, 362
Sears, Jack Wood, 170 - 171,
181-182,186,339-356

420

Name Index

Segraves, Kelly, 18
Setterfleld, Barry, 272
Sheler, J effery L., 80, 143
Shields, Douglas, 340, 343
Simpson, George Gaylord,

22, 27, 32 - 33, 38,

55, 65, 70, 117, 125,
128, 230, 324, 327
SInnot, Edmund W., 33
Slusher, Harold, 29
Smith, H uston, 336
Smith, Wilbur M., 184
Spelser, E.A., 155
Stone, Nathan, 154
Strahler, Arthur N., 81
Sunderland, Luther, 69
Surburg, Raymond, 147,

184, 187,196,

305 - 306, 347

Tahmislan, Theodore N., 71
Taylor, Ian, 218
Taylor, Robert R. J r., 314
Taylor, Kenneth, 185
Teague, William J., Ill -112
Teller, Woolsey, 117
Tennyson, Lord, 127
Thaxton, Charles, 83, 324
Thayer, J.H., 9, 210, 256
Thiele, Edwin, 172 -173
Thielicke, H elmut, 315 - 316
Thomas, J .D., 102,

107, 111, 113

Thompson, Bert, 46, 82, 93, 111
- 112, 139, 152, 172, 220,
227, 236, 283, 292 - 293,
301, 321, 323 - 324, 339 -
342, 345 - 346
Thompson, Keith, 69
Thompson, W.R., 56 - 57
Thurman, Clem, 186
Tiffin, Lee, 81
TIpler, Frank, 64
Trench, R.C., 256

Unger, Merrill, 173, 185
University of Chicago, 126
University of Mississippi
Christian Student
Center, 339, 343
University of Utrecht, 303

Van Bebber, Mark, 213
Van Till, Howard]., 185
Vine, W.E., 347

Wald, George, 73,

165 - 166, 345
Watson, J ames D., 52
Welser, Arthur, 152
Wells, Albert, 137

421

Name Index

Wharton, Edward C., 146
Wheaton College, 92, 103,109
Wheeler, Charles B., 142
Whitcomb, J ohn C., 18, 76 -
77, 91, 97, 147 - 148,

168 - 169, 202,212,

225 - 226, 229
White, 177

Whitelaw, Thomas, 160
WIckramasInghe, Chandra,

62, 66, 68
WIeland, Carl, 361
Wllder-Smith, A.E., 46,

201,312,318, 345
Williams, Arthur F., 183,

187, 193,195
Williams, Glanville, 31
Williams, Kenneth, 111
Willis,John!., 209, 263
Wilson, Clifford, 236, 239
Wilson, E.O., 335 - 336
Wilson, J ames M., 119
Wilson, Robert W., 64
Winona Lake School of
Theology, 246
Wonderly, Dan, 235,

238,240

Woodmorappe, J ohn, 169
Woods, Clyde, 340, 343
Woods, Guy N., 45, 49,

184, 197 - 199,

203, 211 - 212

World Council of Churches, 137
Wysong, R.L., 40, 100, 119,
163, 165, 168 - 169

York, Anthony, 142
Young, DavIsA., 91, 140,
185, 316-317
Young, Edward J., 95,

144, 147, 158, 170,
306, 349, 364
Young, Willard, 99
Youngblood, Ronald F., 359

Zimmerman, Paul, 108, 118,
128,135,144,196
ZIrkle, Conway, 40

422

Scripture Index

Genesis

1-74, 134 - 135, 139 - 140,
143,147, 152 - 153, 155,
158 -160
1-3-146

1-11-91, 94 - 95, 133 - 161

1:1-287

1:1,21,27-221

1:11-321

1:11-12-156 -157

1 : 1 - 2-220

1:1-2:3-147, 152

1:1-2:4-155

1:1-3-289

1:14-194,197,260,272,295

1:15-190

1:16-175

1:2-221, 226, 287

l:3ff.-321

1:4-160

1:4-5-197

1:5-190, 194

1:5-31-285

1:8,12-155

1:20-23-287

1:21-223

1:24-208

1:24-26-157

1:26-160

1:26-27-235, 262, 326
l:26ff.-156
1:27-148, 156, 209,

224,268, 294
1:28-14, 260, 318
1:29-30-240
1:31-229, 265
2:1-35, 139 - 140, 143,
145, 153, 155, 158 - 160
2:1-92, 155
2:4-25-152
2:4ff.-154
2:5ff.-156-157
2:6-7-156
2:7-156,322
2:7-8-155
2:8-9-205
2:9-235
2:9ff.-325
2:16-89
2:16-17-14
2:19-157
2:21-22-138
2 : 22-12
2:24-95,160

423

Scripture Index

Genesis (con'd.)
2:32-91

2:41-55,190,224,294

3:8-262

3:8-19-89

3:17-238

3:21-240

3:22-235

4:1-260

4:4-240

4:6-15-89

4:17-263

4:22-324

4:25-175

5:3-174

5:5-235, 259, 358

5:29-175

5:32-174 - 175

6:11-175

6:12-13-240

6:14-16-324

7:6-174

7:11-174, 352

7:14-190

8:4-352

8:6-12-143

8:13-366

8:14-174

9:14-175

9:18-175

11:3-6-324

11:10-174

11:27-174

11:31-175

12-147

12:1-3-173

15:17-89

21:5-174

25:7-8-366

25:26-173

28:13-154

30:30-209

46:30-209

47:9-173, 369

Exodus

3:2-89
10:26-332
12:40-41-173
19:9,16ff.-89
20:8-11-200, 215
20:11-138, 140, 196,

199, 224 - 225, 229,
251, 264, 285, 294, 305
23:2-8
31:12-17-215
31:17-200, 251
33:9-89
34:10-292

Deuteronomy

6:7-9-14

11:18-25-14

Numbers

7:12,18-193
16:30-292, 349

1 Samuel
3:4-89

2 Samuel
6:6ff.-311

424

Scripture Index

1 Kings

6:1-173

11:42-173

18:2-198

2 Kings
23:1-3-15

1 Chronicles
1:1-27-175

2 Chronicles
7:7-9-15

Ezra

7:10-15

Nehemlah

6:2ff.-332

8:7-8-15

9:6-225

J ob

12:7-8-98

26:13-14-98

38:1-89

38-39-147

40:6-89

42:2-87, 262

Psalms

12-147

18:10-16-89

19:1-2-98

19:1-47, 97,

33:9-199

51:10-292

81:11-12-4

90:4-203

97:6-98

104:5-9-147

148:5-200

Proverbs

8:23-31-147

Ecclesiastes

1:9-332

Isaiah

6:lff.-89

14:12-15-221, 227
21:6ff.-89
29:10-4
40:21-258, 322
43:7-151

45:18-221, 228, 260

55:8-236

66:3-4-4

151, 272

Ezekiel

1-3-89

28:11-17-221, 227
33:7-9-14

Daniel

1:17-89

Matthew

7:13-14-8, 311
7:17-312
13:38-261
19-94, 148

425

Scripture Index

Matthew (con'd.)

19:4-148, 150, 160, 257,
265,299,316, 318,322
19:26-87
22:29-30-292
23:28-10
24-95

24:35-310, 331
28:18-20-14, 16

Mark

4:15-210

4:17-210

4:28-210

6:15-243

8:25-210

10:6-150, 243, 255, 265,
298, 314, 316
12:24-160
13:1-189

Luke

3:34-48-175

8 : 12-210

8:4-15-146

11:45-52-258, 356

11:50-51-322

12:12-89

16:8-125

24:25-160

24:34-36-210

J ohn

l:lff.-148, 317
2:10-266
3:12-96

3:16-14

5:17-214

5:46-47-18, 148

7:46-15

8:32-3

8:44-261

12:48-331

13:5-210

14:6-8

14:15-311, 331

14:17-89

15:26-89

17:17-310, 331

19:26-27-210

20:27-210

Acts

2:4-116, 216

2:38-352

4:18-16

5:28-16

5:42-16

6:10-89

9:3-9-311

10:1-32, 36

14:17-82, 88, 98

17:24-28-98

22:19-20-311

Romans

1 : 2-210
1:2-4, 26, 284
1:2-54, 243
1:18-20-82

1:20-88, 256, 265, 322
1:20-21-98, 244

426

Scripture Index

Romans (con'd.)

2:15-14

5-317

5:12-230, 232, 234 - 235
5:14-18, 149
5:17-150
8:18-243

8:20-22-230, 242, 244, 299

10:17-82

11:36-151

11:8-4

12 : 2-8

14-331

16:17-189

2 Corinthians

2:11-261
4:6-149
4:7-16, 245
5:7-82
11:3-149

Galatians

1:13-311

3:17-173

4:21-31-146

5:9-8

Ephesians

1 Corinthians
2 : 10-88
2:12-13-74
2:13-88
5:1-322
6:19-22-234
11:7-149
11:8,12-149
12:18-347
12:28-210
15-317
15:5-210
15:9-311
15:17-150
15:20-22-231, 234
15:21-230
15:22,49-150
15:23-24-210
15:35-38-323
15:45-150, 230, 299, 322,
355

15:47-95

15:45-48-19

4:24-128

Colossians

1:16-148

1:19-89

2:8-5

2:9-89

3:10-128

2 Thessalonians

2:10-3

2:11-3

3:6-9

1 Timothy

2:13-149, 209, 299

3:10-210

3:16-17-333

:20-5

2 Timothy

2:13-97
2 15-4, 246

427

Scripture Index

2 Timothy (con'd.)

3:1-49
3:9 -10
3:16-180

3:16-17-74, 88, 331, 358
Titus

1:2-7, 90, 271

Hebrews

1:3-74

4:3-10-18

4:9-213

4:15-314

6:1-87, 90, 271

7:14-248

8:4-177, 248

11-17

11:1-82

11:3-17

11:31-49, 350

J ames

1:14-15-210

3:10-356

1 Peter
2:22-314

2 Peter

1:20-21-74, 88, 331

2:4-261

3:1-69

3:4-356

3:5-149

3:8-202, 204

5:8-262

1J ohn
4:4-262

2 J ohn
9-11-9

J ude

3- 9

4- 331
6-261
14-175, 252

Revelation

12:12-261

22:18-19-333

428

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Creation Compromises"

See other formats